(PC) Juarez v. Abdi et al

1
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LUIS SALAZAR JUAREZ,
CDCR #AI-3330,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SERGEANT Y. ABDI and
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
F. PEREZ,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS IN
THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANTS ADBI AND
PEREZ, and
(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHALS TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF THE
SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON ABDI AND PEREZ
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) &
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3)
HAYES, Judge:
On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff Luis Salazar Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court for the
Eastern District of California, which was transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 8

2
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
October 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
and screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), which
require dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. (ECF
No. 7.) The Court found the Complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendants Perez and Abdi, who are alleged to have caused severe injuries by
holding Plaintiff against a hot metal plate without reason or justification, but that it failed
to allege a claim against Defendants Chernish, Clark or Lewis. Id. at 6–12. The Court
dismissed all claims against all Defendants, other than the Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendants Perez and Abdi, and gave Plaintiff the option to either (1) proceed with
the Eighth Amendment claim or (2) file an amended pleading to attempt to cure the
pleading defects of the other claims. Id. at 11–12.
On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF
No. 8.) The FAC names only Perez, Abdi and Chernish as Defendants and includes only
an Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at 2–3. For the following reasons, the Court finds the FAC
once again plausibly alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Perez and
Abdi, but once again fails to state a claim against Chernish. Because it is clear Plaintiff is
unable to state a claim against Chernish, the Court will dismiss Chernish and order the
United States Marshal Service to effect service of the summons and FAC on Perez and
Abdi only.
I. 	Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
A. 	Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding IFP, his FAC requires a pre-Answer
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court
must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 8

3
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets of frivolous or
malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d
903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the
context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). Rule
12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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.” Id. “Determining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere
possibility 	of 	misconduct” 	or 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed 	me
accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 “creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting
under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Devereaux v.
Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1983 “is not itself a source of
substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989) (internal quotations omitted).
B. 	Allegations in the FAC
On June 1, 2024, while incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
(“RJD”) in San Diego, California, Plaintiff was suffering from a severe mental health crisis
and alerted Defendant Correctional Officer Perez that he was “experiencing a breakdown
and expressed serious safety concerns, stating he felt homicidal and suicidal.” (ECF No. 8
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 8

4
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at 2.) Perez failed to notify medical or mental health staff despite his duty and training to
do so. Id. Plaintiff’s “mental condition deteriorated rapidly due to lack of appropriate
response from custody and medical staff.” Id. “During the incident, Defendant Perez and
Defendant [Correctional Officer] Abdi used excessive force by slamming plaintiff and
pinning him against a hot metal plate, despite Plaintiff being in clear mental distress and
offering no threat that justified such force.” Id. As a result, Plaintiff suffered second degree
burns, skin peeling injuries and a ruptured hernia, causing severe pain and trauma. Id.
Body worn camera footage shows that Perez and Abdi told Plaintiff to “stop crying
about his injuries and warned that if he did not comply, they would ‘take him back,’
indicating an intent to cause further harm.” Id. Upon his arrival at the RJD medical
detention area following the incident, Defendant Registered Nurse Chernish “fail[ed] to
properly treat” his burns which “resulted in infection and additional suffering.” Id.
“Plaintiff was left untreated for two days, forcing him to call a ‘man down’ emergency for
medical attention when his conditions worsened and his body went into shock.” Id. Nurse
Chernish showed deliberate indifference to his medical needs “by identifying Plaintiff’s
second-degree burns as mere scratches” on a medical form, and by “delaying proper
medical attention, and failing to prescribe necessary medicine or schedule follow-up care.”
Id. As a result, Plaintiff has “suffered infection, severe pain, permanent scarring, and
ongoing physical and emotional damage.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by (1) failing to
protect him from harm and ignoring his mental health crisis, (2) using excessive and
malicious force against him, (3) failing to provide adequate medical care, and (4) acting
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical and psychological needs. Id.
C. 	Analysis
“[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met.
First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994), quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).
Second, the plaintiff must allege the prison official had a “sufficiently culpable state of
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 8

5
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mind,” that is, “one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or safety.” Id. (quoting
Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302–03). A prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
Plaintiff first claims he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment when Perez and Abdi held him against a hot metal plate resulting
in severe burns, scars, infection, and a ruptured hernia. (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Prison officials
may not “use excessive physical force against prisoners.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.
“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force . . . , the core
judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986)).
As the Court found in its prior screening order, see ECF No. 7 at 7, Plaintiff’s
allegations are sufficient to survive the “low threshold” of the screening required by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) with respect to an Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Perez and Abdi, who Plaintiff alleges caused him severe injuries by holding
him against a hot metal plate without reason or justification. Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123;
Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319; Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; see also Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981) (“Conditions must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of
pain.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to have the U.S. Marshal Service effect service of
the summons and FAC on Defendants Perez and Abdi. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The
officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP]
cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).
Plaintiff also alleges Nurse Chernish failed to properly treat his wounds and failed
to accurately document them by identifying his “second-degree burns as mere scratches”
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 8

6
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on a medical form, and by “delaying proper medical attention, and failing to prescribe
necessary medicine or schedule follow-up care,” which caused infection. 	(ECF No. 8 at
2.) “In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, a
plaintiff must show ‘deliberate indifference’ to his ‘serious medical needs.’” Colwell v.
Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976)). “Deliberate indifference ‘may appear when prison officials deny, delay or
intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which
prison physicians provide medical care.’” Id. (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838
F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). Neither negligence nor gross negligence is actionable under
§ 1983 in the prison context. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835–36 & n.4; Wood v. Housewright,
900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (gross negligence insufficient to state claim for denial
of medical needs to prisoner).
Plaintiff’s allegations of inadequate medical care once again do not plausibly show
(1) that Chernish was aware of facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn
that the type of medical care Chernish provided posed a substantial risk of serious harm to
Plaintiff and (2) that Chernish actually drew such an inference, as opposed to simply
providing inadequate or negligent treatment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; see also Estelle, 429
U.S. at 105–07 (an inadvertent failure to provide medical care, mere negligence or medical
malpractice, and differences of opinion over what medical treatment is proper do not state
an Eighth Amendment claim); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (noting that allegations showing a
“mere possibility of misconduct” do not state a plausible claim for relief).
Plaintiff was informed of these pleading requirements in the Court’s prior screening
order, see ECF No. 7, and has failed to cure them. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable
to cure the defects in his Eighth Amendment claim against Chernish, as he once again
merely alleges he received inadequate medical care but fails to allege facts demonstrating
deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The Court declines to provide an
additional opportunity to file an amended complaint against Defendant Chernish.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Chernish is
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 8

7
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failure to state
a claim. Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.
III. 	Conclusion and Orders
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims against Plaintiff’s claims against all
Defendants are dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) and
§ 1915A(b)(1), except for the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Perez and
Abdi.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a summons as
to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) for Defendants Perez and Abdi and
forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. The Clerk shall provide
Plaintiff with certified copies of the First Amended Complaint and summons for use in
serving Defendants. Upon receipt of this “In Forma Pauperis Package,” Plaintiff must
complete the USM Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address
where Defendants may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.
4.1(c), and return the forms to the United States Marshal Service according to the
instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying the In Forma Pauperis Package.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal Service shall serve a copy of the
First Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendants Perez and Abdi as directed by
Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. Costs of service will be advanced by the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, once served, shall reply to Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint (and any subsequent pleading Plaintiff files in this matter that
names Defendants as a party) within the time provided by the applicable provisions of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(a) and 15(a)(3). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while
defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,”
defendants must respond after the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening).
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 8

8
25-cv-1432-WQH-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff, after service has been completed by the
U.S. Marshal Service, shall serve upon Defendants—or if appearance has been entered by
counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel—a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other
document submitted for the Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). With
every original document sought to be filed with the Clerk, Plaintiff must include a
certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been
served on Defendants or their counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.
5.2. Any document received by the Court that has not been properly filed with the Clerk or
that fails to include a Certificate of Service upon a Defendant or their counsel may be
disregarded.
Dated: January 20, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01432-WQH-JLB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 8