United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Cesar Uribe (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the
California Institute for Men (CIM) in Chino, California,
filed this pro se civil action in San Bernardino
County Superior Court on February 11, 2016. Plaintiff seeks
relief, in relevant part, for the violation of his federal
constitutional rights, which are redressable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Complaint names as Defendants: (1) Louie
Escobell, CEO; (2) Muhammad A. Farooq, CMO; (3) Larry
Maldonado, CHSA II; (4) Jose Serrano, CNE; (5) J.
Christofferson, SRN II; (6) Tim Perez, Warden; (7) B.
LeMaster, Associate Warden; (8) Captain R. Franco; (9)
Lieutenant C.T. Stansbury; (10) Lieutenant D. Williams; and
(11) DOES 1-20.
states that DOES 1-5 were, during the relevant time, employed
by the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as Chief Executive
Officers, Chief Medical Officers or Executives, or Health
Services Administrators, or supervisors of medical staff at
CIM. (Compl. 5). Plaintiff further states that DOES 6-10 and
11-20 were at all relevant times employed by CDCR and were
the commanding officers of CIM Facility A. (Compl. 6).
Plaintiff also states that DOES 11-15 were responsible, along
with DOES 1-5, for ensuring that all CIM medical and
custodial staff, including medical care contractors, complied
with ethical, professional, and applicable laws. (Compl. 6).
Defendants are sued in their individual and official
J. Serrano, L. Maldonado, L. Escobell, B. LeMaster, M.
Farooq, C. Stansbury, J. Christofferson, D. Williams and T.
Perez (“Defendants”) filed a notice of removal on
March 23, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (Docket
Entry No. 2).
alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right
“to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the
California and U.S. Constitutions” (Compl. 11) when
they engaged in conduct that was “intentional, and/or
was done with reckless disregard for, and/or deliberate
indifference toward, plaintiff's rights” (Compl. 7)
which led to Plaintiff contracting the “norovirus on or
about December 12, 2014 and suffer[ing] all of its
symptoms”. (Compl. 9).
also alleges that Defendants are civilly liable in torts for
(1) “Intentional” conduct (Compl. 4, 11-12); and
(2) General Negligence (Compl. 4, 13-16) and that Defendants
are liable for violations of California Civil Code
§§ 52.1(b) and 52(a). (Compl. 11).
requests declaratory relief against Defendants Perez,
LeMaster, Escobell, Farooq, and DOES 1-5. (Compl. 12).
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks, in part, a judgment declaring
that Defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions
violate his rights. (Id.). Plaintiff further
requests (1) “[p]ermanent injunctive relief prohibiting
defendants from continuing to engage in the specific unlawful
practices complained of”; (2) $50, 441 of general
damages; (3) $25, 000 of punitive damages; (4) statutory
damages as allowed by law, “including statutory and
treble damages under California Civil Code §§ 52
and 52.1”; (5) attorneys' fees and costs; (6) the
costs of suit; and (7) such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper. (Compl. 18).
Court has screened the Complaint as prescribed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's
Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
alleges that, while he was an inmate at CIM, Defendants'
actions and, where applicable, inactions caused him to
contract the norovirus. (Compl. 5-10). Plaintiff alleges that
CIM is a “High Risk Medical” (“HRM”)
facility at which he was housed in dorm A8. (Compl. 8). He
claims that on or about “November of 2014, HRM inmates
at CIM Facility A, dorm A6, contracted norovirus.”
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants not only
“failed to give dorm A6 inmates medical care and
treatment”, they “knowingly moved infected dorm
A6 inmates to other non-infected dorms”, including A8,
compelling non-infected inmates to live with infected inmates
and allowing infected inmates to share dining spaces and
medical clinics, among other areas, with non-infected
inmates. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
failed to provide dorm A8 inmates with “latex gloves,
facial masks, or the necessary chemicals to protect
themselves from exposure to” the norovirus.
(Id.). Plaintiff claims that on or about December
12, 2014, he contracted norovirus and “suffered all of
its symptoms including but not limited to an immediate
unforeseen and sudden onset queazyness, nausea, persistent
vomiting, stomach cramps and pain, muscle pain, body aches,
fever, persistent diarrhea, and weight loss, for
approximately a week . . .” (Compl. 9).
alleges that as a “direct and proximate result”
of Defendants' acts and omissions, he “suffered
injuries in the form of, but not limited to, pain and
suffering, mental and emotional distress”. (Compl. 9).
mandates that district courts initially screen civil
complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a
governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A
court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion thereof if
the court concludes that the complaint: (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such ...