Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ayobi v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 14, 2017

SHAJIA AYOBI, Plaintiff,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.


         Plaintiff 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.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed May 19, 2017.


         The 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).

         A 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 Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners 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.


         Plaintiff 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 emotional distress.

         Plaintiff 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 treatment.

         Plaintiff 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.


         A. Linkage Requirement

         Section 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.

         Plaintiff 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.