United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM
FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE [ECF No. 1] THIRTY DAY
Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on
June 1, 2017. Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed
May 19, 2017.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that “fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is in the custody of Central California Women's Facility
(“CCWF”) in Chowchilla, California. Plaintiff
brings this civil rights action against Defendant B.
Showalter, for failing to provide adequate medical care and
against Defendant Warden Darrel G. Adams, for failing to
supervise Defendant Showalter. Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on the grounds of severe
alleges that Defendant Showalter was her Primary Care
Physician during the relevant times and failed to properly
prescribe Plaintiff cholesterol medication that would not
cause serious and permanent side effects. Throughout the
course of Plaintiff's medical treatment, Defendant
Showalter prescribed Lipitor to help reduce and control
Plaintiff's cholesterol. From the initial visitation,
Plaintiff was hesitant about taking prescribed medication,
being aware of Lipitor's possible side effects and
pending lawsuits against the manufacturer. Upon being
prescribed Lipitor by Defendant Showalter, Plaintiff made her
concerns known and questioned the direction of her medical
was informed by Defendant Showalter that some of the claims
of possible side effects are simply not true. Defendant
Showalter proceeded to discuss Plaintiff's possible side
effects, explaining she may experience some pain and
discomfort in her arms and knees. Defendant Showalter's
assurance prompted Plaintiff to take the prescribed
medication. After beginning her course of treatment,
Plaintiff began experiencing pain in her arms and legs, which
limited her daily activities. This prompted Plaintiff to
schedule another doctor visit, where Defendant Showalter
ordered lab work. Prior to receiving the results, Defendant
Showalter called Plaintiff into her office attempting to
subdue Plaintiff's concerns about taking Lipitor.
Defendant Showalter explained that only patients who have a
family history of diabetes have a potential risk of being
diagnosed with Type II diabetes on this medication. Plaintiff
replied that Defendant was aware of her family history of
diabetes. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Showalter acted
with deliberate indifference by knowingly and intentionally
prescribing Lipitor to Plaintiff knowing of her family
history of diabetes. Defendant Showalter instructed Plaintiff
to stop taking the medication, but Plaintiff asserts it was
too late as the damage was already done. Once the lab results
returned, Plaintiff's suspicions were confirmed; the
medication had caused her to become a Type II diabetic. As a
result, Plaintiff is currently taking 500 mg of Metformin
twice a daily and Niacin, which is known to be hard on the
liver and kidneys. Plaintiff reasons, Defendant Showalter is
responsible for her injuries, and if not for Defendant
Showalter prescribing Lipitor, Plaintiff would not have
become a Type II diabetic.
1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of a
plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by
persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v.
Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long
v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
2006); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. To state a claim
under section 1983, Plaintiff is required to show that (1)
each defendant acted under color of state law and (2) each
defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution
or federal law. Long, 442 F.3d at 1185. There is no
respondeat superior liability under section 1983,
and therefore, each defendant is only liable for his or her
own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. To state a
claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
names Defendant Adams as a defendant in this action; however
the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations regarding
any conduct by Defendant Adams. Rather, it appears that
Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Adams liable based upon his
position as warden at CCWF. As there is no respondeat
superior liability under section 1983, Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim ...