United States District Court, E.D. California
KEON L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff,
J. KATAVICH, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND DIRECTING CLERK'S
OFFICE TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE (ECF NO.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court
is Plaintiff's third amended complaint filed November 8,
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 Cir.2002).
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 an inmate in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at
Soledad State Prison. Plaintiff brings this civil rights
action against Dr. Johal who treated him at Wasco State
Prison, where the conduct at issue occurred.
alleges that on September 21, 2015, he was being examined by
Dr. Johal who left the examination room door open while
indiscreetly going over Plaintiff's medical records.
(Third Am. Comp. (“TAC”) 3,  ECF No. 12.) In
doing so, Dr. Johal exposed Plaintiff's diseases and
disorders without regard to the other individuals and inmates
who were outside the door. (TAC 3.) Dr. Johal called another
medical staff member and a correctional officer into the
examination room. (TAC 3-4.) Dr. Johal left the examination
room door open and directed Plaintiff to expose his genital
area and examined him, blurting out her findings. (TAC 4.)
alleges that by continuously leaving the examination room
door open, Dr. Johal deprived him of the same right to
privacy that other inmates being examined at the same time at
the same facility were provided. (TAC 4.) These other inmates
were bestowed the privacy of having the examination room door
closed with no other staff present. (TAC 4-5.) Plaintiff
contends that he never made any threatening gestures or gave
Dr. Johal any cause to warrant her treating him differently
from other inmates who were being examined in the adjoining
examination rooms. (TAC 5.)
filed an inmate grievance and some of the individuals present
were interviewed. (TAC 5.) However, registered nurse Bisby
and correctional officer Marquez, who were summoned into the
examination room, were not interviewed, and Plaintiff is sure
that these interviews would establish that both of the staff
members were not comfortable in partaking in Dr. Johal's
actions. (TAC 5.)
contends that by recklessly disclosing his personal history
of diseases symptoms and conditions, Dr. Johal caused a
serious risk to Plaintiff because he was housed with inmates
who could continue to disclose his medical record and
personal information among the prison population, potentially
risking altercations due to his diseases. (TAC 6.) This was a
CDCR Reception Center routine screening. (TAC 6.) Plaintiff
did not request the examination and was not provided with the
option of refusing the examination. (TAC 6.)
Right to Privacy
alleges that his right to medical privacy was violated when
Dr. Johal did not close the door to his examination room and
having other CDCR ...