1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL TORELL, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05504-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. COMPLAINT 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff, 17 who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), has submitted an amended complaint 18 suing Defendants for deliberate indifference stemming from his medical needs. (Dkt. No. 24 at 19 1.) This Court previously entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file his amended 21 complaint no later than November 7, 2025, or his case would be dismissed without prejudice. 22 (Dkt. No. 23.) On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 24.) 23 24 1 Because this complaint is untimely, and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 2 granted, the Court DISMISSES the case. 3 I BACKGROUND 4 In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from August 2, 2022 through June
5 1, 2024, while he was incarcerated at Clallam County Jail and the Washington State Department 6 of Corrections, Defendants acted “with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in 7 violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” (Dkt. 8 No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 2, 2022, prior to being booked into jail, a CT scan 9 revealed that Plaintiff had a cyst in his throat, and Plaintiff was instructed to follow up with an 10 ear, nose, and throat specialist within two weeks. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that “[j]ail and DOC staff 11 were aware of this diagnosis and medical instruction,” yet failed to provide any follow up care or 12 specialist evaluation. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, “Instead of treatment, Plaintiff was given throat 13 lozenges, juice, and told he might have COVID, while staff ignored the documented medical 14 directive requiring immediate attention.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he informed “numerous
15 correctional officers, sergeants, and counselors,” that he was either choking or having trouble 16 breathing, and these individuals “either ignored him, made him wait hours, or mocked his 17 condition.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff claims that “Officer Mr. Brown” observed Plaintiff’s distress but stated that his 19 sergeant instructed him not to sign or assist, and “Defendant Dr. Light,” “ARNP M. Godwin,” 20 and “other named DOC medical providers” had direct knowledge of Plaintiff’s throat condition. 21 (Id. at 2.) “At least one nurse” visually examined Plaintiff’s throat and failed to order diagnostic 22 testing or physician review, and “[s]taff who examined Plaintiff” documented his symptoms but 23 only issued mild discomfort medications and delayed referral for months. (Id.) Plaintiff does
24 1 not include any numbered counts in his complaint, but contends these facts constitute deliberate 2 indifference under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.) 3 II DISCUSSION 4 Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is
5 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court to the extent it is 6 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 7 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 8 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 9 limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc ). “The 10 standard for determining whether [a] Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 11 granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 12 standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); 13 see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant 14 to § 1915 “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim
15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). 16 The amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2025. (Dkt. No. 24.) This was five 17 days after the date Plaintiff was required to file the amended complaint. The amended complaint 18 should be dismissed because it was untimely filed. 19 Moreover, the amended complaint is vague as to the involvement of each purported 20 Defendant such that is unclear whether the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment 21 applies. Plaintiff identifies he was “incarcerated at Clallam County Jail and subsequently within 22 the Washington State Department Corrections.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff does not identify 23 whether his time at the Clallam County Jail included pretrial detention versus post-conviction
24 1 detention. Nor does he identify when he was transferred from the Clallam County Jail to the 2 State Department of Corrections. Plaintiff also does not identify which correctional staff at 3 which correctional facility knew of his alleged medical condition or when and how they obtained 4 such information.
5 The distinction between pretrial detention and post-conviction confinement is important 6 because protections under the Eighth Amendment do not attach until after conviction. Ingraham 7 v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n.40 (1977) (“Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after 8 the States has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal 9 prosecutions.”); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 n.16 (1979). Whereas “[c]laims by 10 pretrial detainees are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, rather than 11 the Eight Amendment.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998). And although the 12 same standards may be applied to prisoner rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the 13 Eighth Amendment, id., failing to identify “a short and plain statement of the claim” against each 14 defendant does not comport with the requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.1
15 As to the merits of the alleged constitutional violations, “[d]eliberate indifference [in 16 violation of the Eighth Amendment] ‘may appear when prison officials deny, delay or 17 intentionally interfere with medical treatment[.]’” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 18 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL TORELL, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05504-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 12 v. COMPLAINT 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., 14 Defendant. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff, 17 who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), has submitted an amended complaint 18 suing Defendants for deliberate indifference stemming from his medical needs. (Dkt. No. 24 at 19 1.) This Court previously entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file his amended 21 complaint no later than November 7, 2025, or his case would be dismissed without prejudice. 22 (Dkt. No. 23.) On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 24.) 23 24 1 Because this complaint is untimely, and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 2 granted, the Court DISMISSES the case. 3 I BACKGROUND 4 In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that from August 2, 2022 through June
5 1, 2024, while he was incarcerated at Clallam County Jail and the Washington State Department 6 of Corrections, Defendants acted “with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in 7 violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” (Dkt. 8 No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 2, 2022, prior to being booked into jail, a CT scan 9 revealed that Plaintiff had a cyst in his throat, and Plaintiff was instructed to follow up with an 10 ear, nose, and throat specialist within two weeks. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that “[j]ail and DOC staff 11 were aware of this diagnosis and medical instruction,” yet failed to provide any follow up care or 12 specialist evaluation. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges, “Instead of treatment, Plaintiff was given throat 13 lozenges, juice, and told he might have COVID, while staff ignored the documented medical 14 directive requiring immediate attention.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he informed “numerous
15 correctional officers, sergeants, and counselors,” that he was either choking or having trouble 16 breathing, and these individuals “either ignored him, made him wait hours, or mocked his 17 condition.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff claims that “Officer Mr. Brown” observed Plaintiff’s distress but stated that his 19 sergeant instructed him not to sign or assist, and “Defendant Dr. Light,” “ARNP M. Godwin,” 20 and “other named DOC medical providers” had direct knowledge of Plaintiff’s throat condition. 21 (Id. at 2.) “At least one nurse” visually examined Plaintiff’s throat and failed to order diagnostic 22 testing or physician review, and “[s]taff who examined Plaintiff” documented his symptoms but 23 only issued mild discomfort medications and delayed referral for months. (Id.) Plaintiff does
24 1 not include any numbered counts in his complaint, but contends these facts constitute deliberate 2 indifference under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id.) 3 II DISCUSSION 4 Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is
5 subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court to the extent it is 6 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 7 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 8 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 9 limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc ). “The 10 standard for determining whether [a] Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 11 granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 12 standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); 13 see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant 14 to § 1915 “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim
15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). 16 The amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2025. (Dkt. No. 24.) This was five 17 days after the date Plaintiff was required to file the amended complaint. The amended complaint 18 should be dismissed because it was untimely filed. 19 Moreover, the amended complaint is vague as to the involvement of each purported 20 Defendant such that is unclear whether the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment 21 applies. Plaintiff identifies he was “incarcerated at Clallam County Jail and subsequently within 22 the Washington State Department Corrections.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff does not identify 23 whether his time at the Clallam County Jail included pretrial detention versus post-conviction
24 1 detention. Nor does he identify when he was transferred from the Clallam County Jail to the 2 State Department of Corrections. Plaintiff also does not identify which correctional staff at 3 which correctional facility knew of his alleged medical condition or when and how they obtained 4 such information.
5 The distinction between pretrial detention and post-conviction confinement is important 6 because protections under the Eighth Amendment do not attach until after conviction. Ingraham 7 v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n.40 (1977) (“Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after 8 the States has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal 9 prosecutions.”); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 n.16 (1979). Whereas “[c]laims by 10 pretrial detainees are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, rather than 11 the Eight Amendment.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998). And although the 12 same standards may be applied to prisoner rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the 13 Eighth Amendment, id., failing to identify “a short and plain statement of the claim” against each 14 defendant does not comport with the requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.1
15 As to the merits of the alleged constitutional violations, “[d]eliberate indifference [in 16 violation of the Eighth Amendment] ‘may appear when prison officials deny, delay or 17 intentionally interfere with medical treatment[.]’” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 18 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). “[A] 19 prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met. First, the 20 deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 21 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, Plaintiff must 22
1 Also, Plaintiff fails to identify whether his constitutional claims are being brought under 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983, which normally is the vehicle for asserting constitutional claims against defendants acting under color of state law. 24 1 make a subjective showing that the prison official he seeks to hold liable acted with a 2 “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, “one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or 3 safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302–03). Under the objective 4 requirement, the prison official’s acts or omissions must deprive an inmate of the “minimal
5 civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) 6 (internal citations omitted). This objective component is satisfied so long as the institution 7 “furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and 8 personal safety.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1258 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Farmer, 511 9 U.S. at 832. Under the subjective standard, deliberate indifference requires a showing that the 10 prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official 11 must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 12 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison 13 official is deliberately indifferent only if they know that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 14 serious harm and disregards it by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id.
15 Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not provide the required showing that his 16 treatment meets either the objective or subjective requirements to demonstrate a constitutional 17 violation. His claim regarding medical care does not suggest that his basic needs were not met, 18 only that Defendants did not refer him to a specialist for months. Furthermore, Plaintiff names 19 only three Defendants in his proposed amended complaint: Scott Light, PA-C; Michael Godwin, 20 ARNP; and “Officer Mr. Brown.”2 Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that any of these 21 22
23 2 There are two Defendants with the last name “Brown:” Alyssa Brown, CMA and J. Brown, CMA. The Court is unclear which Defendant Plaintiff is referring to. 24 1 named Defendants had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.”3 Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a 2 claim upon which relief may be granted. 3 III CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.
5 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without prejudice. Plaintiff will be given one last opportunity to correct the 6 deficiencies identified in this Order. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint no later 7 than December 12, 2025. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint by such date that 8 addresses the deficiencies identified herein, the matter will be closed. 9 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event. 10 Dated this 14th day of November, 2025. 11 A 12 David G. Estudillo 13 United States District Judge
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3 Plaintiff fails assert any cause of action against the other 41 Defendants. 24