Woods v. Grant

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00586
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL EARL WOODS, Case No. 24-cv-00586-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REOPENING CASE, 9 v. GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT BY MAIL, DISMISSING 10 JOHN GRANT, et al., COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants. 11

13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center (SQRC), filed a 14 pro se civil rights action regarding medical care at SQRC and San Joaquin General Hospital. The 15 Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s action for failing to comply with General Order No. 76. 16 Dkt. No. 9. Considering plaintiff’s subsequent letter explaining his basis for wanting to file the 17 complaint by mail, Dkt. No. 13, the Court will allow it and vacate the prior judgment (Dkt. No. 18 10), reopen the case, and dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff will be granted 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 25 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 27 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 1 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 4 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 5 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 6 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 7 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 8 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 9 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 11 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 12 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 13 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Legal Claims 15 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Matolo at San Joaquin General Hospital performed 16 surgery on the wrong hernia on an unknown date. He alleges that he discussed this surgery with 17 defendant Dr. Grant in November of 2022, and informed defendant Grant that the surgery had not 18 gone well because defendant Matolo had operated on the left side, where there was an old hernia 19 repair, instead of the right side, and the right side was still painful. Plaintiff was referred to surgery 20 for further evaluation. Plaintiff also names as a defendant T. Woodson, who provided an 21 Institutional Level Response to his grievance about the surgery. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Matolo 22 was negligent and violated his rights under California law. 23 Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional claim against any defendant. First, he has not 24 explained how defendant Grant was either responsible for the purported surgery error, or failed in 25 some way to provide plaintiff with adequate treatment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Grant 26 referred him for further surgical evaluation, which is not a deficient response to what plaintiff 27 complained of. 1 sufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 2 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to show a constitutional violation, plaintiff needs to 3 demonstrate that a defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serous medical needs. Plaintiff 4 must allege a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. 5 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part on other grounds by 6 WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 7 Third, there is no section 1983 liability for a prison official simply for their role in 8 reviewing and responding to a grievance. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 9 1993). Plaintiff has therefore not alleged a cognizable claim against defendant Woodson. 10 Plaintiff may amend his complaint to explain whether any defendant violated his 11 constitutional rights. 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 14 1. The Clerk shall vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. 15 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file his complaint and application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis by mail, and the Clerk is instructed to docket his case-initiating documents accordingly. 17 3. Even liberally construed, the allegations do not give rise to any federal claims 18 against any named defendant. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to remedy the 19 deficiencies noted above. 20 4. If plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC), he must do so within 21 28 from the date of this order. The FAC must include the caption and civil case number used in 22 this order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended 23 complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the allegations 24 he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not 25 incorporate material from his original complaint or petition by reference. Failure to amend within 26 the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. 27 5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the court 1 Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 2 || may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 3 {| 41(b). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: August 29, 2025 6 7 TRINA HOMPSON 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28