The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ALFONSO VALERIANO-DELACRUZ,
10 Case No. 26-cv-02700-RS (PR)
Plaintiff,
11
v. ORDER DISMISSING THE
12 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
PAUL BRAZELTON, et al., AMEND
13
Defendants.
14
15
16 INTRODUCTION
17 Plaintiff alleges that supervisory employees of the California Department of
18 Corrections and Rehabilitation were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
19 His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for
20 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A(a).
21 Plaintiff has not stated any claim for relief. He has not provided specific facts
22 connecting any defendant to any wrong. Also, supervisory defendants cannot be held
23 liable simply for being supervisors. Furthermore, the claims against the Pleasant Valley
24 State Prison defendants must be heard in the Eastern District, not here. Accordingly, the
25 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before October
26 1, 2026. The amended complaint must comply with the instructions in this order. Failure
27 to file a proper amended complaint by October 1, 2026 will result in dismissal of this
1 DISCUSSION
2 A. Standard of Review
3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any
6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55
18 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
19 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
20 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
21 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
22 B. Legal Claims
23 Plaintiff alleges that from 2014 to 2018 (and to the present time) various
24 supervisory CDCR officials have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
25 needs. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) The named defendants are Paul Brazelton, the Warden
26 of CTF-Soledad; Michele D. Tomas, Chief Medical Officer at CTF; Craig Koenig, the
27 Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison; and I. Igbinoso, Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant
1 Valley. He alleges in a conclusory fashion that they, as supervisors, are responsible for the
2 creation, promulgation, and implementation of medical policies, and are, in general,
3 responsible for ensuring that each prisoner receives proper medical care. (Id. at 12.) He
4 further alleges that defendants have failed to provide him with proper medical equipment
5 to self-catheterize, delayed providing medical treatment and ordering tests, and failed to
6 provide medications. (Id. at 17.)
7 Such allegations are insufficient to state any claim for relief and consequently the
8 complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must
9 allege specific facts tying a specific person to the exact wrong. Conclusory allegations that
10 persons have not been responsible are not sufficient. “A person deprives another ‘of a
11 constitutional right,’ within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act,
12 participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally
13 required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v.
14 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743
15 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation is individualized and focuses on the duties and
16 responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have
17 caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Defendants cannot be held liable for a
18 constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were integral participants in
19 the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018). Absent any
20 details linking the injury to the defendant, the mere fact that the injury occurred at some
21 time after the defendant’s challenged action does not establish causation. See Daniel v.
22 Nat’l Park Service, 891 F.3d 762, 767 (9th Cir. 2018).
23 Plaintiff may wish to focus on the immediate persons he asked for specific help and
24 who denied it to him, on what date, at what institution, etc., rather than raise claims against
25 supervisors who were not directly and immediately involved in his care. Supervisor
26 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply
27 “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the
1 supervisors’ personal involvement in a constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-82.
2 Also, his claims against the Pleasant Valley defendants, Koenig and Igbinoso, are
3 DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff raising claims against them in the appropriate
4 venue. Pleasant Valley State Prison lies in the Eastern District of California and it is in
5 that court that plaintiff must raise any claims against any person at Pleasant Valley. He
6 may not raise such claims in his amended complaint for this action.
7 Plaintiff should be aware that many of his claims may be untimely. Section 1983
8 takes its limitations period from the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury
9 torts, see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985), which, in California, is two years.
10 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004).
11 This two-year statute of limitations period is tolled for two years if the plaintiff is a
12 prisoner serving a term of less than life, thus giving such prisoners effectively four years to
13 file a federal suit. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). Even if plaintiff is entitled to a
14 four-year limitations period, any claims based on events before 2022 (four years before he
15 filed suit) would likely be untimely.
16 CONCLUSION
17 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before
18 October 1, 2026. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number
19 used in this order (26-02700 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
20 must appear on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s
21 form, a copy of which will be sent to plaintiff. Because an amended complaint completely
22 replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the
23 claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v.
24 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from
25 any prior complaint or document by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint
26 by October 1, 2026 will result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 41(b) without further notice to plaintiff.
1 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
2 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice
3 of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask
4 for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this
5 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated: August _1_9_, 2026
_________________________
8
RICHARD SEEBORG
9 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27