Anthony McComb v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09591
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANTHONY MCCOMB, 10 Case No. 25-cv-09591-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING THE 12 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AMEND 13 CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff alleges that employees of the California Department of Corrections and 18 Rehabilitation were negligent in treating his back pain. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 19 containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 20 1915 and 1915A(a). 21 Plaintiff has not stated any claim for relief. He has not provided specific facts 22 connecting any defendant to any wrong. Also, negligence, gross negligence, and medical 23 malpractice are not actionable under section 1983. Accordingly, the complaint is 24 DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before May 1, 2026. The 25 amended complaint must comply with the instructions in this order. Failure to file a proper 26 amended complaint by May 1, 2026 will result in dismissal of this action under Federal 27 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice to plaintiff. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, a court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 9 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 12 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 13 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 14 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 15 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 16 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 17 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 18 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 19 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 20 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 21 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 22 B. Legal Claims 23 Plaintiff alleges that since 2013 he has complained to the CDCR about his back 24 pain, and that Dr. Ashley Mulligan-Pfile, his primary care physician, refused at some 25 unstated time to examine his back, and “said that surgery was not an option.” (Compl., 26 Dkt. No. 8 at 3.) He alleges that it took “over 10 years” to receive an MRI. (Id. at 3.) He 27 had surgery at some later unstated time, which took seven hours instead of the usual four. 1 (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the CDCR’s negligence resulted in avoidable nerve damage to 2 his back. (Id.) 3 This is insufficient to state any claim for relief. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient 4 facts connecting any defendant to any wrong. For example, he does not state when he had 5 surgery; how having had surgery or any other treatment earlier would have prevented 6 damage to his back; what specific treatment(s) would have been beneficial and when they 7 should have been offered or when his request for them was denied; and what information 8 an earlier MRI or an examination would have disclosed. Furthermore, claims of 9 negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice are not actionable under section 1983. See 10 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 11 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (negligence and gross negligence are insufficient to state claim 12 for denial of medical needs to prisoner). 13 Plaintiff should also be aware that his claims may be untimely. Section 1983 takes 14 its limitations period from the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury torts, 15 see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985), which, in California, is two years. See 16 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 This two-year statute of limitations period is tolled for two years if the plaintiff is a 18 prisoner serving a term of less than life, thus giving such prisoners effectively four years to 19 file a federal suit. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). 20 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. In his amended complaint, 21 plaintiff must allege specific facts tying a specific person to the exact wrong. “A person 22 deprives another ‘of a constitutional right,’ within the meaning of section 1983, if he does 23 an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act 24 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff 25 complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. 26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation is individualized and 27 focuses on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or 1 omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Defendants cannot 2 be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were 3 integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th 4 Cir. 2018). 5 CONCLUSION 6 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 7 May 1, 2026. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 8 used in this order (25-09591 RS (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 must appear on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s 10 form, a copy of which will be sent to plaintiff. Because an amended complaint completely 11 replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the 12 claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 13 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from 14 any prior complaint or document by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint 15 by May 1, 2026 will result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 41(b) without further notice to plaintiff. 17 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 18 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 19 of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 20 for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 21 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March _1_2_, 2026 _________________________ 24 RICHARD SEEBORG 25 Chief United States District Judge