Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 VINCENT M. ORTIZ, JR., No. 2:26-cv-1201-CKD

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et.al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 I. In Forma Pauperis

20 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff’s

21 declaration in support of the motion makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The

22 motion is granted. By separate order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in

23 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The order will direct the appropriate

24 agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the

25 Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent

26 of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will

27 be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

28 plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

1 II. Screening Requirement

2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

4 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

7 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

8 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

9 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

10 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

11 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

12 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

13 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

14 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

15 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

16 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

17 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

18 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

19 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

20 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

21 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

22 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

23 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and

24 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

25 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

26 III. Allegations in the Complaint

27 Plaintiff names High Desert State Prison Medical Staff/Dr. Meane as defendants. Plaintiff

28 alleges that he was seen by defendant Dr. Meane for a hernia and an issue with his wrist, “but I

1 got diagnosed on the streets but missed my surgery I asked Doctor Meane.” ECF No. 1 at 13.

2 IV. Analysis

3 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement

4 of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

5 544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain factual allegations

6 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The facts alleged must “‘give

7 the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.

8 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

9 Plaintiff appears to complain about the alleged denial or delay of medical care, which can

10 violate the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). A violation

11 occurs when a prison official causes injury as a result of his or her deliberate indifference to a

12 prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id. “Deliberate indifference” includes a purposeful act or failure

13 to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

14 Cir. 2006) citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Mere delay of medical treatment, “without more, is

15 insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State

16 Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). Where a prisoner alleges that delay of

17 medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show the delay caused

18 “significant harm and that defendants should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan,

19 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002).

20 Here, plaintiff’s sparse allegations about defendant Dr. Meane do not survive screening

21 because plaintiff does not allege specific facts that show that he allegedly acted with deliberate

22 indifference to plaintiff’s health or safety. Merely alleging that defendant Meane denied plaintiff

23 medical treatment is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.

24 V. Leave to Amend

25 Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff

26 must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s

27 constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended

28 complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There

1 can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection

2 between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

3 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights

4 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

5 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

6 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

7 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

8 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

9 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

10 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

11 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

12 VI. Other Motions

13 Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Bifurcate Evidence” (ECF No. 10) and a “Motion to Order

14 Appointing Referee for Discovery” (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff is informed that unless and until there

15 is an operative complaint in this action, there is nothing further that will occur. Both motions will

16 be denied.

17 VII. Conclusion

18 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.

20 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees

21 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the California Department of

22 Corrections filed concurrently herewith.

23 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

24 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

25 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

26 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket

27 number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an

28 amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

1 || be dismissed.

2 5. Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Evidence (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

3 6. Plaintiff's Motion to Order Appointing Referee for Discovery (ECF No. 11) is

4 | DENIED.

5 | Dated: May 14, 2026 ( a / dip i

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9 | Ckdortiz.1201.screen.

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28