United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF NO. 1]
Jose Guadalupe Calderon is appearing pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed on January 6, 2020.
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.
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as
true only for the purpose of the sua sponte
screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
spent five years at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff
complained to his primary care provider Doctor Magdy that he
was losing mobility and was not able to run, jump or play
sports as a normal 25-year-old. Plaintiff also said he was
having pain and his energy level was low. Approximately one
year later, Doctor Magdy ordered blood test and informed
Plaintiff that his condition was “gout.” Doctor
Magdy never told why he believed Plaintiff had
“gout.” On or about August 13, 2019, Doctor Magdy
prescribed Allopurinol for gout, and Plaintiff was advised to
stop eating red meat, beans, peanut butter and all kinds of
food rich in protein and to drink a lot of water.
and 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Doctor Gamboa who continued
to prescribe Allopurinol for gout. Plaintiff informed Doctor
Gamboa that his body was shutting down and Plaintiff started
to have doubts as to whether he had gout. Plaintiff told
Doctor Gamboa that maybe he had something other than gout.
Doctor Gamboa ordered more blood test and continued to tell
Plaintiff that he had gout because his uric acid was out of
range. However, Plaintiff did not have inflammation in his
right leg, foot or big toes which are symptoms of gout.
about August 4, 2010, Plaintiff requested to be seen by an
outside doctor other than Doctor Gamboa.
about June 8, 2011, Plaintiff's uric acid level was
within normal range. Doctor Gamboa now knew that
Plaintiff's symptoms were not related to gout, but he