The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WILLIAM BRUCE CORDOBA, No. 2:26-cv-1133 AC P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 BROWN,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is a county inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
18 and state tort law without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full
19 filing fee for this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing
20 that he cannot afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly,
21 plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1
22 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a
24
1 This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in monthly installments that
25
are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),
26 1915(b)(1). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial filing fee from
plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order directed to the appropriate
27 agency requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken
from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in
28 full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
1 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A
2 claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
3 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on
4 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Id. at 327. The
5 critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable
6 legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by
7 statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
8 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than
9 “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
10 cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007). In other words,
11 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
12 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the
13 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
14 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
15 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
16 omitted). When considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the
17 allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), and construe the
18 complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421
19 (1969) (citations omitted).
20 II. Factual Allegations of the Complaint
21 The complaint alleges that defendant Brown was negligent and violated plaintiff’s rights
22 under the Fourteenth Amendment2 on December 7, 2025, when she gave him the wrong
23 medication. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that after defendant gave him his medication he
24
2 Although plaintiff cites the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment governs his claims
25
because he was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident. See Vazquez v. County of Kern,
26 949 F.3d 1153, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is more protective than
the Eighth Amendment ‘because the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial
27 detainees, while the Eighth Amendment only prevents the imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment of convicted prisoners.’” (quoting Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir.
28 2004))).
1 noticed that it did not look anything like the medication he is prescribed, and he repeatedly asked
2 defendant whether it was the right medication when it did not look like any medication he had
3 ever taken. Id. at 3. Defendant assured him it was the correct medication, but approximately
4 thirty minutes after plaintiff took the medication, he began to feel like he was intoxicated. Id. He
5 requested a blood or urine test to determine what he had been given and was denied. Id. at 3-4.
6 Plaintiff alleges that he was traumatized by the incident and suffered mental distress as well as
7 unspecified physical damage. Id.
8 III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required
9 After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that
10 plaintiff allegations that Brown failed to double check his medication, despite the fact that he
11 notified her it did not look like any medication he had ever taken before, has adequately stated a
12 cognizable claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
13 IV. Failure to State a Claim
14 However, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state any claim for relief
15 against Brown for failing to have plaintiff take a blood or urine test. It is unclear whether Brown
16 was the nurse who refused plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff also has not alleged facts showing that
17 the refusal to provide the tests put him at substantial risk of harm. Plaintiff also has not stated a
18 claim for negligence under state law because he does not allege compliance with the Government
19 Claims Act. It appears to the court that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to fix these problems.
20 Therefore, plaintiff has the option of filing an amended complaint.
21 V. Options from Which Plaintiff Must Choose
22 Based on the court’s screening, plaintiff has a choice to make. After selecting an option
23 from the two options listed below, plaintiff must return the attached Notice of Election form to
24 the court within 21 days from the date of this order.
25 The first option available to plaintiff is to proceed immediately against defendant
26 Brown on his Fourteenth Amendment claim based on Brown’s administration of incorrect
27 medication. By choosing this option, plaintiff will be agreeing to voluntarily dismiss his
28 negligence claim and any claims based on refusing his request for a blood or urine test. The
1 court will proceed to immediately serve the complaint and order a response from defendant
2 Brown.
3 The second option available to plaintiff is to file an amended complaint to fix the
4 problems described in Section IV. If plaintiff chooses this option, the court will set a
5 deadline in a subsequent order to give plaintiff time to file an amended complaint.
6 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer
7 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do
8 not. You have stated a claim for deliberate indifference based on Brown giving you the wrong
9 medication. You have not stated a claim for negligence because you have not alleged that you
10 complied with California’s notice of claim requirements and you have not stated any claims
11 against Brown based on the refusal to give you a blood or urine test.
12 You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your Fourteenth
13 Amendment claim against Brown based on the administration of incorrect medication and
14 voluntarily dismiss the other claims; or, (2) try to amend the complaint. To decide whether to
15 amend your complaint, the court has attached the relevant legal standards that may govern your
16 claims for relief. See Attachment A. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to
17 file an amended complaint.
18 VII. CONCLUSION
19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
21 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff
22 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the
24 appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith.
25 3. Plaintiff’s negligence claim and any claims based on the allegation that defendant
26 Brown refused to provide plaintiff a blood or urine test do not state claims for which relief can be
27 granted.
28 ////
] 4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his Fourteenth Amendment claim
2 || against defendant Brown based on her administration of incorrect medication as set forth in
3 || Section III above, or to file an amended complaint.
4 5. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the
5 || attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened
6 || complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint.
7 6. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to
8 || proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of the
9 | negligence claim and any claims based on the refusal to provide a blood or urine test.
10 || DATED: April 20, 2026 ~
12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 WILLIAM BRUCE CORDOBA, No. 2:26-cv-1133 AC P
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION
13 BROWN,
14 Defendant.
15
16 Check one:
17 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Fourteenth Amendment claim against
18 defendant Brown based on the administration of incorrect medication without amending
19 the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by choosing this option, the negligence claim
20 and any claims based on the refusal to provide a blood or urine test will be voluntarily
21 dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
22
23 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint.
24
25 DATED:_______________________
26 William Bruce Cordoba
Plaintiff pro se
27
28
1 Attachment A
2 This Attachment provides, for informational purposes only, the legal standards that may
3 apply to your claims for relief. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an
4 amended complaint.
5 I. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaints
6 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions
7 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode,
8 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must specifically identify how each named
9 defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).
10 There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or
11 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy,
12 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official
13 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
14 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted).
15 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make
16 his amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an
17 amended complaint replaces the prior complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)
18 (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir.
19 2012). Therefore, in an amended complaint, every claim and every defendant must be included.
20 II. Legal Standards Governing Substantive Claims for Relief
21 A. Deliberate Indifference
22 To state a medical care claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege
23 facts showing that:
24 (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those
25 conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious
harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures
26 to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
27 involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct
obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused
28 the plaintiff’s injuries.
1 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). “To satisfy the third element,
2 the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively unreasonable,’ which
3 requires a showing of ‘more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to
4 reckless disregard.’” Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2021)
5 (quoting Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125).
6 B. State Law Notice of Claims Requirement
7 To state a viable state law claim against a state employee or entity, a plaintiff must allege
8 compliance with the Government Claims Act. See State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th
9 1234, 1237 (2004) (for claims against the state, timely presentation of a claim under the
10 Government Claims Act is an element of the cause of action and must be pled in the complaint);
11 Cal. Gov’t Code § 900.6 (defining “State” as “the State and any office, officer, department,
12 division, bureau, board, commission or agency of the State claims against which are paid by
13 warrants drawn by the Controller”). This requirement applies in federal court. See Clapp v. City
14 and County of San Francisco, 846 F. App’x 525, 526 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal where
15 plaintiff “failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he complied with, or was excused from, the
16 claim presentment requirement of the California Government Claims Act” (citation omitted)).
17 C. Personal Involvement
18 “Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,”
19 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164,
20 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
21 rights violations are not sufficient,” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)
22 (citations omitted). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,
23 within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
24 affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
25 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
26 1978) (citation omitted). In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff
27 must link each individual defendant with some affirmative act or omission that shows a violation
28 of plaintiff’s federal rights.