Cervantes v. Elsen

Background

Adrian L. Cervantes, who was incarcerated at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. He sought money damages and named “Wellpath Medical,” Wellpath physician Dalizu Elsen, and the “Sonoma Co[unty] Main Jail” as defendants.

The court had previously dismissed Cervantes’s original complaint with leave to amend. Cervantes then filed an amended complaint, which the court reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to screen a prisoner’s complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Claims and deficiencies

Cervantes’s amended complaint focused on alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs and referred to “medical malpractice/unethical medical treatment.” He stated that he had experienced medical neglect and mistreatment and that the California justice system would not hear his case because he could not pay. The court said he did not provide enough information about his alleged “critical conditions,” the treatment he received or did not receive, the dates and locations involved, or the specific conduct of the defendants.

The court explained that Cervantes needed to identify the individual defendants whose acts or omissions allegedly caused a constitutional violation and connect each defendant to his claim. Naming the jail alone was not enough. The court also said that, if Cervantes named Wellpath staff, he needed to identify specific staff members and explain whether they were government employees or private parties. A private medical provider or employee cannot be sued under § 1983 merely based on private conduct; the complaint needed to explain the basis for treating the defendant as a government actor.

The court further explained that a supervisor is not liable under § 1983 solely because of a supervisory relationship. Cervantes needed to allege the supervisor’s own participation, direction, knowledge, or failure to prevent the alleged violation, as applicable. The court also noted that the complaint appeared not to show exhaustion of administrative remedies, which generally requires a prisoner to complete the available grievance process before filing suit. Cervantes checked a box indicating that he had appealed to the highest available level, but he did not provide appeal numbers, dates, or results and identified only “Grievance medical.”

Order

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Cervantes to file a second amended complaint within 28 days using the court’s civil-rights form. The new complaint must state each claim separately, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, identify the resulting injury, explain exhaustion as to each claim and defendant, include only properly joined claims, directly link each defendant to the claims, provide the relevant dates, state whether Cervantes was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner during the relevant period, and identify specific Wellpath staff and whether they were government actors or private parties.

The court stated that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints and that failure to file it on time or correct the listed deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court also denied Cervantes’s request to waive the filing fee. It explained that permission to proceed without paying the fee in advance does not forgive the fee itself. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on November 14, 2023.