Ventura v. CDCR et al

1
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
JESSE M. VENTURA,
CDCR #T-40564,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CDCR, GUZMAN and ROBERTS,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26cv0223-LL (DEB)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
and
(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)
Plaintiff Jesse M. Ventura, a state prisoner housed at Centinela State Prison in
Imperial, California, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was injured by the Defendants’ negligence. 	Doc. No. 1. 	He
has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. No. 2.
I. 	Motion to Proceed IFP
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$405, consisting of a $350 statutory fee plus an additional administrative fee of $55,
although the administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 8

2
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to
prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). 	See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). 	Section
1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to submit a “certified copy of
the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for . . . the 6-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v.
King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the
Court assesses an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account,
or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is
greater, unless the prisoner has insufficient assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(4); Bruce
v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016). Prisoners who proceed IFP must pay any remaining
balance in “increments” or “installments,” regardless of whether their action is ultimately
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2); Bruce, 577 U.S. at 84.
Plaintiff’s prison certificate, which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, shows an average monthly balance of $206.25 and average monthly
deposits of $225.33 for the 6-months preceding the filing of this action, and an available
balance of $0.25. Doc. No. 4 at 4. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP
and declines to assesses the initial partial filing fee of $45.06 because it appears Plaintiff
has insufficient funds to pay it. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2002)
(finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a “safety-valve” preventing dismissal of a
prisoner’s IFP case based solely on a “failure to pay . . . due to the lack of funds available
to him when payment is ordered.”) Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the $350 filing fee
pursuant to the installment payment provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
II. 	Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
A. 	Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding IFP, his Complaint 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, which is frivolous,
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 8

3
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
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
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 quote marks 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.
B. 	Allegations in the Complaint
On January 26, 2024, while housed at Centinela State Prison (“CSP”), Plaintiff had
reconstructive surgery on his left knee at an outside hospital. Doc. No. 1 at 5. On February
23, 2024, he states that he had a physical therapy session at the Centinela Central Health
Facility. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that:
Following therapy, Officers Acosta and Roberts, aka John Doe loaded me
onto a motorized cart. I was shackled in waist chains and handcuffs. My left
leg was immobilized in a brace due to the surgery. Ofc. Roberts aka John Doe
was at the wheel of the cart and without warning or regard for the surroundings
suddenly accelerated the vehicle which was parked in a tight space. My left
foot got caught under an elevated trash can outside Central Health. Two CSP
residents witnessed this incident: Ed Tolbert and Gabriel Perez. 	The force
caused my left leg to twist and jerk. I felt immediate and excruciating pain in
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 8

4
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
my left knee and foot. I screamed out and Ofc. Acosta told Ofc. Roberts aka
John Doe to stop the vehicle. I was placed in a wheelchair and taken into the
triage area of Central Health. There my left knee and abrasions to my left foot
were examined. The accident has damaged and prolonged my recovery from
the left knee surgery. 	It has delayed and disrupted my physical therapy. 	I
have required additional medical treatment beyond that from my surgery. My
left knee was too swollen for months following the accident to have an MRI
performed. I live in constant pain which impairs all my day to day activities.
Ofc. Roberts aka John Doe’s negligent operation of the motor vehicle was the
legal proximate cause of the damages I suffered and still suffer including but
not limited to my left knee and left foot. Per Government Code 844.6 (b) and
(d) and Vehicle Code 17001, Ofc. Roberts aka John Doe’s negligence renders
him and CDCR and (A) Warden Fidencio Guzman liable for my injuries.
(Id.)
Plaintiff names as Defendants the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), CSP Acting Warden Guzman and CSP correctional officer
Roberts. 	(Id. at 1.) 	He brings causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort,
premises liability and under the vehicle code, and seeks money damages. (Id. at 3.)
C. 	Analysis
Although this action has been docketed as an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Complaint on its face presents only state law claims. Title 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) (emphasis added). 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 quotation marks omitted).
Prisoner medical care may amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, when
prison officers are “deliberately indifferent” to an inmate’s “serious” medical needs. 	See
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 	However, it is clear the allegation of
negligence in the operation of the motorized cart fails to plausibly allege such a claim.
“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence”
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 8

5
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
and “more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). Negligence is not actionable under § 1983. 	Daniels
v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986).
“[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met.
First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” 	Id. at 834,
quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Second, Plaintiff must allege the prison
official had a “sufficiently culpable state of 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.
The allegations in the Complaint with respect to the serious medical need prong in
relation to Plaintiff’s knee and foot are sufficient to survive the “low threshold” of
screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for a deliberate indifference
claim. 	Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Doty v. County of Lassen, 37
F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[I]ndicia of a ‘serious’ medical need include (1) the
existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and worthy of
comment or treatment, (2) the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an
individual’s daily activities, and (3) the existence of chronic or substantial pain.”)
However, the Complaint as drafted fails to plausibly allege any Defendant was
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 	The deliberate indifference
prong of an Eighth Amendment violation “is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or
failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the
indifference.” 	Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). A prison official can
be held liable only if he “knows of and disregards 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.” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837.
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 8

6
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Roberts negligently operated the motorized cart. 	Doc.
No. 1 at 5. There are no factual allegations Defendant Roberts was actually aware that the
manner in which he operated the cart posed a substantial risk to Plaintiff. See Farmer, 511
U.S. at 837 (a prison “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 835 (“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more
blameworthy than negligence” and “more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s
interests or safety.”) 	If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendant Roberts, he must plausibly allege Roberts was aware of facts from which
he could have inferred that his use of the motorized cart presented a substantial risk to
Plaintiff, actually drew such an inference, and failed to act to prevent the injury. Id.; Jett,
439 F.3d at 1096.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants CDCR and Acting Warden Guzman are responsible for
Roberts’ negligent handling of the motorized cart. Doc. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff may not rely
on a respondeat superior theory of liability under § 1983 but must allege facts which
plausibly 	show 	each 	individual 	defendant 	was 	personally 	involved 	in 	the 	alleged
constitutional violation. 	See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In
order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must
be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation: there is no
respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”) 	A prisoner must allege “(1) that the
specific prison official, in acting or failing to act, was deliberately indifferent to the
mandates of the eighth amendment and (2) that this indifference was the actual and
proximate cause of the deprivation of the inmates’ eighth amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment.” 	Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
Supervisors may only be held liable if they were “personally involved in the constitutional
violation or a sufficient causal connection exists between the supervisor’s unlawful conduct
and the constitutional violation.” 	Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation,
726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013). Because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 8

7
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
constitutional violation arising from Roberts’ negligent handling of the motorized cart, and
has failed to allege Guzman was personally involved, he has failed to allege a causal
connection 	between 	a 	constitutional 	violation 	and 	unlawful 	conduct 	by 	Defendant
Guzman. 	Id. 	In addition, the CDCR is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983, and as an
agency of the State of California is immune from private damage actions or suits for
injunctive relief brought in federal courts under § 1983. 	Brown v. California Dep’t of
Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
With respect to Plaintiff’s state law claims, the Court may “decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction” over any supplemental state law claim if it “has dismissed all
claims 	over 	which 	it 	has 	original 	jurisdiction.” 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1367(c); 	Sanford 	v.
MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n the usual case in which all
federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under
the pendent jurisdiction doctrine . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction
over the remaining state-law claims.”) Because no federal claims remain in the Complaint,
the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	is 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim.
D. 	Leave to Amend
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants leave to amend. 	See Rosati v.
Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro
se complaint without leave to amend [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)] unless ‘it is
absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’”),
quoting Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012).
III. 	Conclusion and Orders
Good cause appearing, the Court:
1. 	GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP. Doc. No. 2.
2. 	DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from
Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 filing fee by collecting monthly payments from
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 8

8
26cv0223-LL (DEB)
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
Plaintiff’s account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s
income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
3. 	DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Jeff
Macomber, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box
942883, Sacramento, California 94283-0001.
4. 	DISMISSES all claims against all Defendants in the Complaint without
prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b).
5. 	GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in
which to file an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies of pleading noted in this
Order. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference
to his original Complaint. Defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the First
Amended Complaint will be considered waived. 	See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach
Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n
amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896,
928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-
alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”) 	A failure to
amend will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and failure to
prosecute. 	See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does
not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the
dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00223-LL-DEB Document 4 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 8