Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JIMMIE EARL JONES, III, No. 2:25-cv-3157 CSK P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 10, 2025, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

19 with leave to amend because all claims raised against the named defendants were barred by the

20 Eleventh Amendment. (ECF No. 7.) Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint.

21 (ECF No. 11.) For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff is granted the option to proceed with his

22 potentially colorable claim raised in claim one against defendant Matolon alleging violation of

23 plaintiff’s right to privacy based on disclosure of plaintiff’s medical records, or plaintiff may elect

24 to file a second amended complaint.

25 I. SCREENING STANDARDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

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

9 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

10 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

11 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

12 1227.

13 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

14 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

15 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

16 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

17 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a

18 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations

19 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

20 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the

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

22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal

23 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as

24 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the

25 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

26 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

27 II. DISCUSSION

28 The only named defendant in the amended complaint is Dr. Matolon. (ECF No. 11 at 2.)

1 The amended complaint contains nine legal claims against defendant Matolon based on the same

2 factual allegations. Plaintiff alleges that a data breach was discovered in January 2022 involving

3 a laptop computer that contained personal information regarding plaintiff. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff

4 alleges that the laptop was stolen out of a car, apparently belonging to defendant Matolon. (Id. at

5 4.) According to a Health Care Services Institutional Level Response to plaintiff’s grievance

6 attached to the amended complaint, the alleged breach involved “health information or personally

7 identifiable information.” (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff alleges that a class action lawsuit was filed

8 regarding the alleged breach but that plaintiff excluded himself from the class action.1 (Id. at 3.)

9 Plaintiff alleges that his personal information has been compromised as a result of the alleged

10 breach. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is the victim of I.R.S. fraud and other fraud issues as a

11 result of the alleged breach. (Id.)

12 A. Claim One

13 In claim one, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the

14 Fourteenth Amendment and the California Information Practices Act. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s

15 allegations that his medical records were disclosed as a result of a data breach caused by

16 defendant Matolon states a potentially colorable claim for violation of the right to privacy under

17 the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. See Johnson v. California Correctional Healthcare

18 Services, et al., No. 2:25-cv-3050 CSK P (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 11 at 7). Plaintiff also appears to

19 claim that the alleged breach involved disclosure of other personal information. However,

20 plaintiff does not identify the other personal information allegedly disclosed. This Court cannot

21 determine whether plaintiff states a potentially colorable claim for violation of the right to privacy

22 based on disclosure of other personal information without knowing the type of personal

23 information allegedly disclosed. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

24 Turning to plaintiff’s claim alleging violation of the California Information Practices Act,

25 to state a state law claim, plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with the California Government

26 Claims Act. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810, et seq. The Government Claims Act requires that a tort

27

1 Plaintiff appears to refer to Thomas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 34-2022-00328693-

28 CU-PO-GDS (Sacramento Co., Cal.).

1 claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation

2 and Government Claims Board no more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal.

3 Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950, 950.2 (2011). A plaintiff may file a written

4 application for leave to file a late claim up to one year after the cause of action accrues. Cal.

5 Gov’t Code § 911.4.

6 Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause

7 of action for damages against a public entity or official. See State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32

8 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims

9 Act must be pled in the complaint. See id. at 1237, 1240; see also Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils.

10 Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). The plaintiff must present facts demonstrating

11 compliance, rather than simply conclusions suggesting as much. See Shirk v. Vista Unified

12 School Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007), as modified (Oct. 10, 2007). Such requirements also

13 apply to state law claims included in a federal action under § 1983. See Volis v. Housing Auth.

14 of the City of L.A. Emps., 670 F. App’x 543, 544 (9th Cir. 2016).

15 Plaintiff fails to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act as to his claim

16 brought pursuant to the California Information Practices Act. Accordingly, this claim is

17 dismissed. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint raising this claim, plaintiff must present

18 facts demonstrating compliance with the Government Claims Act.

19 B. Claim Two

20 In claim two, plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth

21 Amendment, the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and the California Confidentiality of

22 Medical Information Act. (ECF No. 11 at 4.) The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims

23 raised in claim two appear duplicative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims raised in

24 claim one. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed as duplicative. If plaintiff files a second

25 amended complaint raising these claims, plaintiff shall address how these claims differ from the

26 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims raised in claim one.

27 In claim two, plaintiff claims that the disclosure of his private information violated his

28 Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. (Id. at 4.) “[T]o maintain an Eighth

1 Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate

2 indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)

3 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires plaintiff to show (1) “a

4 ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

5 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) that “the

6 defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (quoting McGuckin v. Smith,

7 974 F.2d 1050, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Technologies v.

8 Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Plaintiff fails to describe how the alleged

9 disclosure of his private information by defendant Matolon violated his Eighth Amendment right

10 to adequate medical care. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

11 Turning to plaintiff’s claim alleging violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical

12 Information Act, plaintiff fails to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act.

13 Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint raising this

14 claim, plaintiff must present facts demonstrating compliance with the Government Claims Act.

15 C. Claim Three

16 In claim three, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and

17 the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (ECF No. 11 at 5.) The Fourth Amendment claim

18 raised in claim three appears duplicative of the Fourth Amendment claims raised in claims one

19 and two. Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment claim raised in claim three is dismissed as

20 duplicative. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint raising this Fourth Amendment claim,

21 plaintiff shall address how this Fourth Amendment claim differs from the Fourth Amendment

22 claims raised in claims one and two.

23 The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the

24 Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use

25 without just compensation to the property owner. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The Supreme Court

26 has articulated two categories of takings under the Fifth Amendment: (1) where the government

27 physically acquires private property for public use, or (2) where the government engages in a “per

28 se” taking by imposing regulations that restrict an owner’s ability to use his or her own property.

1 See Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139, 147-49 (2021). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate

2 how defendant Matolon violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause under either of the two

3 categories set forth above. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

4 D. Claim Four

5 In claim four, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal

6 Protection Clause. (ECF No. 11 at 6.) The Fourteenth Amendment claim raised in claim four

7 appears duplicative of the Fourteenth Amendment claims raised in claims one and two.

8 Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment claim raised in claim four is dismissed as duplicative.

9 If plaintiff files a second amended complaint raising this Fourteenth Amendment claim, plaintiff

10 shall address how this Fourteenth Amendment claim differs from the Fourteenth Amendment

11 claims raised in claims one and two.

12 An equal protection claim may be established by showing that a defendant intentionally

13 discriminated against a plaintiff based upon his membership in a protected class, see Hartmann v.

14 Calif. Dep’t of Corrs. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013), or that similarly situated

15 individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate

16 state purpose, see Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-602 (2008)).

17 Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how defendant Matolon violated the Equal Protection Clause under

18 either of the two theories set forth above. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

19 E. Claim Five

20 In claim five, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against

21 unreasonable searches and seizures. (ECF No. 11 at 7.) “The Fourth Amendment protects [t]he

22 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

23 searches and seizures.” Cuevas v. City of Tulare, 107 F.4th 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation and

24 quotation marks omitted). While plaintiff claims that defendant Matolon violated the Fourth

25 Amendment by leaving the laptop in his car (ECF No. 11 at 7), these allegations do not

26 demonstrate a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and

27 seizures. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

28 ///

1 F. Claim Six

2 In claim six, plaintiff alleges violation of his Eighth Amendment right to personal safety.

3 (ECF No. 11 at 8.) A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and

4 unusual punishment where he or she deprives a prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life’s

5 necessities with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

6 (1994). Therefore, to succeed on such an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that

7 (1) the defendant prison official’s conduct deprived him or her of the minimal civilized measure

8 of life’s necessities and (2) that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s

9 health or safety. See id. Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that the alleged data

10 breach put plaintiff’s safety at risk so as to deprive plaintiff of the minimal civilized measures of

11 life’s necessities. While plaintiff claims that criminals now have access to plaintiff’s private

12 information (ECF No. 11 at 8), plaintiff fails to allege how disclosure of this information

13 impacted plaintiff’s personal safety. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

14 G. Claim Seven

15 In claim seven, plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment right to adequate

16 medical care. (ECF No. 11 at 9.) This claim appears duplicative of the Eighth Amendment claim

17 raised in claim two. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed as duplicative. If plaintiff files a second

18 amended complaint, plaintiff shall address how this Eighth Amendment claim differs from the

19 Eighth Amendment claims raised in claim raised in claim two.

20 H. Claim Eight

21 In claim eight, plaintiff alleges violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. (ECF

22 No. 11 at 10.) This claim appears duplicative of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim

23 raised in claim three. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed as duplicative. If plaintiff files a

24 second amended complaint, plaintiff shall address how this Fifth Amendment Takings Clause

25 claim differs from the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Claim raised in claim three.

26 I. Claim Nine

27 In claim nine, plaintiff alleges violation of his Sixth Amendment right to access the courts.

28 (ECF No. 11 at 11.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Matolon, as the accused, shall enjoy the right

1 to a speedy trial and the right to confront witnesses. (Id.)

2 The grounds of claim nine against defendant Matolon are unclear. Plaintiff does not

3 describe how defendant Matalon allegedly violated the Sixth Amendment. For these reasons,

4 claim nine is dismissed. If plaintiff raises this claim in a second amended complaint, plaintiff

5 shall address how defendant Matolon violated the Sixth Amendment.2

6 III. PLAINTIFF’S OPTIONS

7 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Matolon with his claim alleging

8 violation of his right to privacy based on disclosure of medical records raised in claim one, and

9 pursue only that claim, or he may delay serving any claim and attempt to cure the pleading

10 defects as to his other claims. If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendant Matolon

11 with his potentially colorable claim alleging violation of his right to privacy based on disclosure

12 of medical records raised in claim one, then within thirty days plaintiff must so elect on the

13 attached form. In this event the Court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of

14 the remaining claims raised in the amended complaint without prejudice. Under this option,

15 plaintiff does not need to file a second amended complaint.

16 Or, plaintiff may delay serving defendant Matolon with the potentially colorable claim

17 and attempt to cure the pleading defects as to the other claims discussed above. If plaintiff elects

18 to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff has thirty days to amend. Plaintiff is not granted

19 leave to add new claims or new defendants.

20 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought

21 in the right place, plaintiff has complied with the California Government Claims Act, and plaintiff

22 is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must contain a request for particular relief.

23 Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial

24 way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

25 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an

26

27 2 Prisoners have a First Amendment right to access the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

350 (1996). Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains no allegations supporting a claim against

28 defendant Matolon for violation of the plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access the courts.

1 act, participates in another’s act, or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes

2 the alleged deprivation).

3 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

4 and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

5 opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

6 detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

7 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

8 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

9 must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

10 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570).

11 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

12 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for

13 more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

14 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

15

16 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions

17 can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are

18 not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id.

19 A second amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

20 pleading. Local Rule 220; see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th

21 Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

22 non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

23 original pleading is superseded. Plaintiff is not granted leave to add new claims or new

24 defendants.

25 IV. CONCLUSION

26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27 1. All claims in the amended complaint, but for the claim raised in claim one against

28 defendant Matolon for violation of the right to privacy based on disclosure of medical records, are

1 | dismissed with leave to amend. Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend

2 || his complaint to attempt to cure the pleading defects discussed above. Plaintiff is not obligated to

3 || file a second amended complaint.

4 2. The allegations in the amended complaint are sufficient to state potentially cognizable

5 | claim for violation of the right to privacy based on disclosure of medical records against

6 || defendant Matolon. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff chooses to proceed solely as to this

7 || claim, plaintiff shall so indicate on the attached form and return it to the Court within thirty days

8 | from the date of this order. In this event, the Court will construe plaintiffs election to proceed

9 || forthwith as consent to an order dismissing the defective claims without prejudice.

10 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

11 | dismissed.

12

13 || Dated: August 13, 2026 4

CA Spo |

CHI SOO KIM

15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20 | Jones3157.ame/2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JIMMIE EARL JONES, III, No. 2: 25-cv-3157 CSK P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION

14 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows:

18 ______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with his claim raised in claim one alleging

violation of his right to privacy against defendant Matolon based on

19

disclosure of medical records. Under this option, plaintiff consents to

20 dismissal of the remaining claims in the amended complaint, without

prejudice.

21

OR

22

_____ Plaintiff opts to file a second amended complaint and delay service of

23 process.

24

DATED:

25

_______________________________

26 Plaintiff

27

28