Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANDES BUCKHALTER, Case No. 2:22-cv-08754-JVS (AFM)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING

13 v. COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 14 AMEND

DR. JUSTIN SHERFEY,

15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 28, 2022, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is a state prisoner who 19 is presently incarcerated at the California State Prison in Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”). 20 Plaintiff additionally filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, 21 which was granted. (ECF Nos. 2, 4-5.) Plaintiff names only one defendant in this 22 action, Dr. Sherfey, who is identified as a “doctor / surgeon.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 23 Plaintiff purports to raise one claim, in which he references both the Eighth 24 Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Fourteenth 25 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff’s one claim appears to arise 26 from an unspecified surgery that Dr. Sherfey performed on plaintiff’s arm on 27 September 9, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that the procedure was performed at “Palmdale 28 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:33

1 Regional Medical Center.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 7.) 2 Plaintiff’s Complaint is not signed or dated. (Id.) 3 In accordance with the mandate of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 4 (“PLRA”), the Court has screened the Complaint prior to ordering service to 5 determine whether the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which 6 relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 7 from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).The 8 Court’s screening of the pleading is governed by the following standards. A 9 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two 10 reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts alleged under 11 a cognizable legal theory. See, e.g., Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 12 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) 13 (when determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a 14 claim under the PLRA, the court applies the same standard as applied in a motion to 15 dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). In determining whether the pleading 16 states a claim on which relief may be granted, its allegations of fact must be taken as 17 true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See, e.g., Soltysik v. 18 Padilla, 910 F.3d 438, 444 (9th Cir. 2018). However, the “tenet that a court must 19 accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal 20 conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, a court first 21 “discount[s] conclusory statements, which are not entitled to the presumption of 22 truth, before determining whether a claim is plausible.” Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 23 726 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 24 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). Nor is the Court “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion 25 couched as a factual allegation or an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed- 26 me accusation.” Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal 27 quotation marks and citations omitted). 28

2 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:34

1 Because plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court construes the allegations of the 2 pleading liberally and affords plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 3 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th 4 Cir. 2008) (because plaintiff was proceeding pro se, “the district court was required 5 to ‘afford [him] the benefit of any doubt’ in ascertaining what claims he ‘raised in 6 his complaint’”) (alteration in original). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held 7 that “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ 8 requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements 9 of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a 10 right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations 11 in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 12 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted, alteration in original); see also 13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint 14 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 15 is plausible on its face.’ . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 16 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 17 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” (internal citation omitted)). 18 In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“Rule 8”) states: 19 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 20 jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim 21 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in 22 the alternative or different types of relief. 23 (Emphasis added.) Rule 8(d)(1) provides: “Each allegation must be simple, concise, 24 and direct. No technical form is required.” Although the Court must construe a 25 pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, a plaintiff nonetheless must allege a minimum 26 factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair 27 notice of what plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., 28

3 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:35

1 Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 2 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (a complaint must give defendants fair notice of 3 the claims against them). If a plaintiff fails to clearly and concisely set forth factual 4 allegations sufficient to provide defendants with notice of which defendant is being 5 sued on which theory and what relief is being sought against them, the pleading fails 6 to comply with Rule 8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 7 1996); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). A 8 claim has “substantive plausibility” if a plaintiff alleges “simply, concisely, and 9 directly [the] events” that entitle him to damages. Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 10 U.S. 10, 12 (2014). Failure to comply with Rule 8 constitutes an independent basis 11 for dismissal of a pleading that applies even if the claims are not found to be “wholly 12 without merit.” See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. 13 Following review of the Complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff’s pleading 14 does not comply with Rule 8 because it fails to include a short and plain statement of 15 each claim that is sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims 16 are and the grounds upon which they rest. Further, as currently pled, the factual 17 allegations appear insufficient to state a federal civil rights claim on which relief may 18 be granted against the one named defendant. Accordingly, the Complaint is 19 dismissed with leave to amend to correct the deficiencies as discussed in this Order. 20 See Rosati, 791 F.3d at 1039 (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint 21 without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 22 complaint could not be cured by amendment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 If plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First 24 Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order, 25 remedying the deficiencies discussed herein. Plaintiff is admonished that, if he 26 fails to timely file a First Amended Complaint or fails to remedy the deficiencies of 27 28

4 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:36

1 his pleading, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice 2 and without further leave to amend.1 3 A. RULE 8 4 Plaintiff’s pleading violates Rule 8 in that it fails to allege a minimum factual 5 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of 6 what federal claim(s) plaintiff is raising in this action and which factual allegations 7 in the pleading give rise to each such claim. 8 Initially, plaintiff is admonished that, irrespective of his pro se status, he must 9 comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United 10 States District Court for the Central District of California (“L.R.”). See, e.g., Briones 11 v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (“pro se litigants are 12 not excused from following court rules”); L.R. 1-3; L.R. 83-2.2.3 (“Any person 13 appearing pro se is required to comply with these Local Rules and with” the Federal 14 Rules.). Plaintiff’s Complaint violates, inter alia, L.R. 11-3.3 requiring that each 15 page of a pleading be numbered consecutively, L.R. 11-5.2 requiring that exhibits 16 attached to a pleading be numbered consecutively to the pleading, and L.R. 11-1 17 requiring that all documents be signed by a party appearing pro se. 18 Further, plaintiff appears to be bringing only one claim in this action, but, 19 within that claim, plaintiff references both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 20 (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff’s factual allegations in the pleading appear to pertain to 21

22 1 Plaintiff is advised that this Court’s determination herein that the allegations in the Complaint 23 are insufficient to state a particular claim should not be seen as dispositive of that claim. 24 Accordingly, although this Court believes that you have failed to plead sufficient factual matter in your pleading, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, you are not 25 required to omit any claim or defendant in order to pursue this action. However, if you decide to pursue a claim in a First Amended Complaint that this Court has found to be insufficient, then this 26 Court, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636, ultimately may submit to the assigned district judge a recommendation that such claim be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, 27 subject to your right at that time to file Objections with the district judge as provided in the Local 28 Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges.

5 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:37

1 one medical procedure performed by the sole named defendant in this action. (Id. at 2 5-6.) Plaintiff does not appear to set forth any facts concerning a violation of his due 3 process rights, so it is unclear how plaintiff’s citation to the Fourteenth Amendment 4 relates to his Claim I or to any other claim that plaintiff may be intending to raise in 5 this action. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 6 Because plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe his allegations 7 liberally and must afford him the benefit of any doubt, but the Court does not accept 8 as true conclusory allegations that are unsupported by specific facts. See, e.g., 9 Salameh, 726 F.3d at 1129; Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 10 unsupported allegations that unspecified actions by Dr. Sherfey “physically 11 damaged” plaintiff’s arm and that Dr. Sherfey “caused extreme damage to [plaintiff]s 12 arm and made [his] arm worse” (ECF No. 1 at 5) are insufficient to state a plausible 13 claim under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Keates, 883 F.3d at 1243. A pleading 14 such as plaintiff’s Complaint that merely alleges “naked assertion[s] devoid of further 15 factual enhancement” is insufficient to comply with Rule 8. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 16 (alteration in original, internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Moreover, to state a federal civil rights claim against a specific defendant, a 18 pleading must set forth facts alleging that such defendant, acting under color of state 19 law, deprived plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the United States Constitution or 20 a federal statute. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A person deprives 21 another ‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 22 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act 23 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff 24 complains].’” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson 25 v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)) (emphasis and alteration in original). 26 Here, the only defendant named in this action appears to a doctor at a medical facility 27 that does not appear to be part of the state prison where plaintiff presently is 28

6 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:38

1 incarcerated. Plaintiff does not allege that Dr. Sherfey is an employee of the state, 2 and plaintiff sets forth no facts showing how Dr. Sherfey was acting under color of 3 state law when he operated on plaintiff’s arm. Plaintiff has not alleged that he sought 4 medical treatment from any medical official at CSP-LAC at any relevant time, that 5 any medical official at CSP-LAC referred plaintiff to Dr. Sherfey, or even that 6 plaintiff was incarcerated at the time that he was treated by Dr. Sherfey in September 7 2020. Rather, Dr. Sherfey appears to be a private person. “Section 1983 liability 8 extends to a private party where the private party engaged in state action under color 9 of law and thereby deprived a plaintiff of some right, privilege, or immunity protected 10 by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.” Brunette v. Humane Society of 11 Ventura Cnty., 294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, as currently pled, plaintiff 12 has not alleged that Dr. Sherfey was engaged in state action during plaintiff’s one- 13 time treatment. Therefore, it appears to the Court that plaintiff has failed to name as 14 a defendant any individual who was acting under color of state law when he or she 15 caused plaintiff to suffer an alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. 16 Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff wishes to state one or more federal 17 civil rights claims against a specific defendant, plaintiff should set forth in a First 18 Amended Complaint “simply, concisely, and directly” the actions that each such 19 defendant took while acting under state law that caused plaintiff to suffer a specific 20 constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Johnson, 574 U.S. at 12. 21 The only factual allegations that plaintiff sets forth are that the defendant 22 performed an unspecified type of surgery on plaintiff’s arm on September 9, 2020. 23 (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that his arm was “physically damaged,” and that 24 he suffers from pain and numbness in his arm and fingers. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges 25 that the defendant “detached muscles and attached them to other muscles.” (Id.) 26 Plaintiff, however, sets forth no facts showing the reason for the surgery, how he 27 came to be treated by Dr. Sherfey, or what physical damage he alleges was caused 28

7 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:39

1 by the surgery rather than by his unspecified underlying medical condition. Plaintiff 2 additionally alleges that he now suffers from arthritis, which he “neve [sic] 3 experienced prior to this surgery.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff does not allege in what part of 4 his body he is now experiencing “arthritis,” when this condition arose, or how the 5 condition is connected to the surgery performed on his arm by Dr. Sherfey. 6 Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege that he has ever sought or received medical 7 treatment for his arthritis. Nothing in the limited factual allegations in the Complaint 8 raises a plausible inference that any action (or failure to take action) by Dr. Sherfey 9 caused plaintiff to suffer from arthritis, or that such arthritis is a serious medical issue. 10 Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet his pleading burden of alleging that a 11 named defendant deprived him of a right guaranteed under the United States 12 Constitution or a federal statute while acting under color of state law. Plaintiff’s 13 pleading fails to clearly allege how any state actor took an affirmative act, 14 participated in another’s affirmative act, or failed to perform an act that he or she was 15 legally required to do that caused plaintiff to suffer a specific constitutional 16 deprivation. To state a claim against an individual defendant, plaintiff must allege 17 sufficient factual allegations to nudge each claim plaintiff wishes to raise against a 18 particular defendant “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” See Twombly, 19 550 U.S. at 570; see also McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (Rule 8 requires at a minimum 20 that a pleading allow each defendant to discern what he or she is being sued for). 21 As noted above, the Court is mindful that, because plaintiff is appearing pro se, 22 the Court must construe the allegations of the pleading liberally and must afford 23 plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. That said, the Supreme Court has made clear that 24 the Court has “no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Pliler 25 v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). In addition, the Supreme Court has held that, 26 while a plaintiff need not plead the exact legal basis for a claim, plaintiff must allege 27 “simply, concisely, and directly events” that are sufficient to inform a defendant of 28

8 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:40

1 the factual grounds for each claim. Johnson, 574 U.S. at 12. In the Complaint, 2 plaintiff fails to meet this burden. As currently pled, it is not clear how many claims 3 plaintiff is purporting to raise herein, how Dr. Sherfey was acting under color of state 4 law at any relevant time, or what action taken by Dr. Sherfey is alleged to have caused 5 which violation of plaintiff’s federal civil rights. The Court therefore finds that 6 plaintiff’s pleading violates Rule 8 because it fails to set forth a minimal factual and 7 legal basis for any claim sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s 8 claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. 9 B. EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM(S) 10 Plaintiff purports to raise his claim(s) under the Eighth Amendment arising 11 from medical treatment that Dr. Sherfey provided one time on September 9, 2020. 12 To state a claim or claims for constitutionally inadequate medical care under the 13 Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show that a specific defendant was deliberately 14 indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 15 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “This includes both an objective 16 standard -- that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual 17 punishment -- and a subjective standard -- deliberate indifference.” Colwell v. 18 Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 First, to meet the objective element of a deliberate indifference claim, a 20 prisoner “must demonstrate the existence of a serious medical need.” Colwell, 763 21 F.3d at 1066. “A medical need is serious if failure to treat it will result in significant 22 injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 23 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). In his 24 Complaint, plaintiff does not set forth any facts showing that he suffered from a 25 serious medical need before he was treated by Dr. Sherfey. In addition, plaintiff does 26 not allege the purpose of the surgery, what type of surgery was performed, or what 27 underlying medical condition caused plaintiff to seek treatment from Dr. Sherfey. 28

9 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:41

1 Further, although plaintiff alleges that, subsequent to his one visit with Dr. Sherfey, 2 plaintiff has suffered pain, numbness, loss of motion, and arthritis (ECF No. 1 at 5- 3 6), plaintiff sets forth no facts showing that plaintiff sought further medical treatment 4 from Dr. Sherfey for any of these medical conditions. Similarly, plaintiff’s 5 Complaint does not allege that Dr. Sherfey failed to provide constitutionally adequate 6 medical care at any time subsequent to plaintiff’s surgery on September 9, 2020. 7 Accordingly, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to allow the Court 8 to draw a plausible inference that plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need 9 prior to what appears to have been his one encounter with Dr. Sherfey. 10 Second, to meet the subjective element of a deliberate indifference claim, “a 11 prisoner must demonstrate that a specific state official acted with deliberate 12 indifference.” See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal 13 quotation marks omitted). Deliberate indifference may be manifested by the 14 intentional denial, delay, or interference with a prisoner’s medical care. See Estelle, 15 429 U.S. at 104-05. The official, however, “must not only ‘be aware of facts from 16 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but 17 that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (quoting 18 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)); see also Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066 19 (a “prison official is deliberately indifferent . . . only if the official knows of and 20 disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety” (internal quotation marks 21 omitted)). Thus, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, negligence, 22 a mere delay in medical care (without more), or a difference of opinion over proper 23 medical treatment, are all insufficient to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. 24 See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-07; Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60; Sanchez v. Vild, 891 25 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 26 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional 27 violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. 28

10 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:42

1 Here, plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth any factual allegations showing 2 that the only named defendant was aware that plaintiff suffered from a serious 3 medical need at any relevant time, that Dr Sherfey was “aware of facts from which 4 the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm” to plaintiff 5 existed in the absence of additional medical treatment, or that Dr. Sherfey knew of 6 and disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health arising from his failure to 7 provide additional treatment for any serious medical need. See, e.g., Toguchi, 391 8 F.3d at 1057. To the contrary, it appears that plaintiff is alleging that he received 9 medical treatment from Dr. Sherfey on one occasion. Further, although plaintiff 10 appears to allege that Dr. Sherfey was negligent during that treatment, mere 11 negligence or “[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 12 merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Even accepting 13 as true the factual allegations in the pleading for the purpose of determining whether 14 plaintiff’s Complaint states any claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff 15 fails to allege that he (or anyone else) informed Dr. Sherfey of any serious medical 16 issues subsequent to the surgery Dr. Sherfey performed on plaintiff’s arm, or that 17 plaintiff ever sought and was refused further medical treatment from Dr. Sherfey. 18 Moreover, as discussed above, plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts raising a 19 plausible inference that Dr. Sherfey was engaging in state action under color of law 20 at the time that he performed surgery on plaintiff’s arm. 21 To the extent that plaintiff purports to raise a claim for medical malpractice, 22 this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a claim that arises under state law. 23 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power 24 authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) 25 (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). 26 “Absent a substantial federal question,” a district court lacks subject matter 27 jurisdiction, and claims that are “wholly insubstantial” or “obviously frivolous” are 28

11 Case 2:22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:43

1 insufficient to “raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes.” 2 Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45-46 (2015). From the very few factual 3 allegations in the Complaint, it appears that plaintiff may be attempting to raise a 4 claim for medical malpractice, but this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 5 such a claim. 6 If plaintiff wishes to state a federal civil rights claim pursuant to the Eighth 7 Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment against Dr. Sherfey, then plaintiff should 8 set forth in a First Amended Complaint a short and plain statement of the actions that 9 such defendant is alleged to have taken, or failed to have taken, while acting under 10 color of state law, that caused plaintiff to suffer a specific constitutional deprivation. 11 ************ 12 If plaintiff still desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file a First 13 Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order, 14 remedying the pleading deficiencies discussed above. The First Amended 15 Complaint should bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled “First 16 Amended Complaint”; and be complete in and of itself without reference to the 17 original Complaint or any other pleading or document. 18 Plaintiff is admonished that, irrespective of his pro se status, if plaintiff wishes 19 to proceed with this action, then he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Central 21 District of California. In particular, plaintiff must sign and date his First Amended 22 Complaint. 23 The clerk is directed to send plaintiff a blank Central District civil rights 24 complaint form, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize. Plaintiff is admonished that 25 he must sign the civil rights complaint form, and he must use the space provided in 26 the form to set forth all of the claims that he wishes to assert in a First Amended 27 Complaint. Further, if plaintiff feels that any document is integral to any of his 28

12 Case 2°22-cv-08754-JVS-AFM Document 15 Filed 03/10/23 Page 130f13 Page ID #:44

1 || claims, then he should attach such document as an exhibit at the end of the First 2 || Amended Complaint and clearly allege the relevance of each attached document to 3 || the applicable claim raised in the First Amended Complaint. 4 In addition, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, then he may 5 || request a voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 6 || Procedure 41(a). The clerk also is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal form for 7 || plaintiff's convenience. 8 Plaintiff is further admonished that, if he fails to timely file a First 9 | Amended Complaint, or if he fails to remedy the deficiencies of this pleading as 10 || discussed herein, then the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed 11 || with prejudice on the grounds set forth above and for failure to diligently 12 || prosecute. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | DATED: 3/10/2023 *

"ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13