# Jarrold

> District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384841

## Case

- **Full name:** Gerardo Azpera v. I. Jarrold, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384841

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GERARDO AZPERA., 2:25-cv-3510-CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 I. JARROLD, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Gerardo Azpera is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28
19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the complaint fails to state a claim and should
20 be dismissed with leave to amend.
21 I. In Forma Pauperis
22 Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the
23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The
24 motion is granted. By separate order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in
25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The order will direct the appropriate
26 agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the
27 Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent
28 of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will
1 be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
2 plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
3 II. Screening Requirement
4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
15 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
16 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than
17 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
18 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,
19 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
20 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim
21 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
22 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
23 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
24 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
25 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and
26 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
27 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
28 /////
1 III. Allegations in the Complaint
2 In Claim One, plaintiff alleges that defendant I. Jarrold, a correctional officer, violated the
3 Eighth Amendment by failing to release plaintiff on time for a mental health appointment on May
4 20, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that he was “extremely late” for his appointment. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)
5 In Claim Two, plaintiff alleges that defendant Jarrold violated policies and protocol by
6 “disallowing me my medical/mental health care,” although the complaint includes no dates or
7 details. Id. at 6. It is unclear to the court whether this allegation is related to the allegation in
8 Claim One regarding the events of May 20, 2025.
9 In Claim Three, plaintiff seems to allege that defendant Jarrold violated plaintiff’s rights
10 by failing to provide a “priority pass” for his mental health appointment. Again, it is unclear to
11 the court whether this allegation is related to the allegation in Claim One regarding the events of
12 May 20, 2025. Id. at 6.
13 In Claim Five1, plaintiff appears to allege a delay in opening his cell door and suggests
14 that defendant Jarrold was responsible. Id. at 8. Again, it is unclear to the court whether this
15 allegation is related to the allegation in Claim One regarding the events of May 20, 2025.
16 In Claim Six, plaintiff alleges that he has been the subject of racial discrimination because
17 defendant Jarrold “allows white inmates to roam around…but retaliates and targets on colored
18 inmates.” Id at 7. No dates or details are provided.
19 In Claim Seven, plaintiff alleges gender discrimination based on transgender status,
20 stating that on April 23, 2025, defendant Jarrold violated “protocol by refusing a very important
21 (sic) failing to provide adequate medical care.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant
22 Jarrold did not open the cell door timely such that plaintiff was late for a medical appointment. Id.
23 In Claim Eight, plaintiff alleges that defendant Jarrold was responsible for leaving the cell
24 lights on for “a period of 30 minutes after COs are alone” on May 12, 2025. Id. at 10.
25 Plaintiff requests money damages. Id. at 11.
26 /////
27

28 1 It does not appear that plaintiff included a Claim Four.
1 IV. Legal Standards
2 A. Linkage Requirement
3 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
4 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See
5 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
6 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a
7 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates
8 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that
9 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th
10 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must
11 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of
12 plaintiff's federal rights.
13 B. Conditions of Confinement
14 Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from
15 harmful conditions of confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). A prison
16 official may be held liable for subjecting an inmate to harmful conditions of confinement if an
17 inmate suffers a sufficiently serious injury, and the prison official was deliberately indifferent to
18 the risk of harm. Id. at 834, 837. The relevant inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with
19 deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to
20 his future health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation omitted).
21 C. Equal Protection
22 To state claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must generally
23 show the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based
24 upon membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166
25 (9th Cir. 2005).
26 A plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating “intentional unlawful discrimination or... facts
27 that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent.” Monteiro v. Tempe Union
28 High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).
1 D. Retaliation
2 The right of access to the courts extends to the exercise of established prison grievance
3 procedures. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing elements of
4 retaliation claim). In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts suggesting that
5 retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” factor
6 behind the defendant's conduct. See Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th
7 Cir. 1989).
8 V. Analysis
9 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon
10 which relief can be granted under federal law. Although there are allegations regarding issues
11 with defendant Jarrold, none are specific enough for the Court to determine whether they state a
12 cognizable claim. Further, although plaintiff names F. Perez as a defendant, there are no
13 allegations against him/her. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
14 VI. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party
15 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not
16 intended as legal advice. The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined
17 that they do not state any claim against the defendants. Your complaint is being dismissed, but
18 you are being given the chance to fix the problems identified in this screening order.
19 Although you are not required to do so, you may file an amended complaint within 30
20 days from the date of this order. If you choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular
21 attention to the legal standards identified in this order which may apply to your claims.
22 VII. Amended Complaint
23 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
24 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.
25 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in
26 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C.
27 § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the
28 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory
1 | allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of
2 | Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
3 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
4 | make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
5 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a
6 || general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
7 || F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no
8 | longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
9 || complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
10 VII. CONCLUSION
1] In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
13 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees
14 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the California Department of
15 || Corrections filed concurrently herewith.
16 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
17 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended
18 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil
19 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket
20 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an
21 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action
22 || be dismissed.
23 | Dated: May 27, 2026 □□ I / dle ae

25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28 Ckd beal 25.3636.scrn

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384841. Public record. Not legal advice.