# Valeriano-Delacruz > District Court, N.D. California · August 19, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11430235 ## Case - **Full name:** Alfonso Valeriano-Delacruz v. Paul Brazelton, et al. - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** August 19, 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/11430235 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11430235. Public record. Not legal advice.