1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01100-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Robert Rojas is a former inmate who alleges that he is being denied access to his 19 prison medical records by defendants California Correctional Health Care Services and California 20 Medical Board. Plaintiff claims that this denial violates his due process rights. His complaint, 21 however, fails to state a claim. I will give plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before 22 recommending dismissal. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 23 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and (2). 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 27 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 28 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 1 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 2 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 3 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 4 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 5 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 6 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 7 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 8 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 9 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 10 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 11 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 12 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 13 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 14 Analysis 15 Plaintiff alleges that defendants have denied him access to his prison medical records in 16 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. He states that he 17 needs his medical records to pursue Social Security benefits and to file lawsuits related to his 18 medical care in prison. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that since he is no longer in custody, there is no 19 effective procedure for him to obtain his records; he states that defendants have failed to respond 20 to his requests for his records. Id. at 3-4. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to access his medical records. Collins v. 22 Kessler, No. C 02-1811 WHA(PR), 2002 WL 1940303, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2002) (“There 23 is no constitutional right for a patient to see his or her own medical records.”) (citing Gotkin v. 24 Miller, 514 F.2d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 1975)). Even if plaintiff were still in custody, he would not 25 have a constitutional right to his records.1 Veenstra v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, No. 1:15- 26 1 State prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their medical and central files 27 pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 28 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these files or for copies of 1 | CV-00270-EJL, 2017 WL 4820353, at *6 (D. Idaho Oct. 24, 2017), aff'd, 785 F. App’x 390 (9th 2 | Cir. 2019) (holding that prisoner-plaintiff’s have no constitutional right to access their medical 3 | records). 4 I will allow plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 5 | action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 6 | will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 7 | Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 8 | without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 9 | complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 10 | complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 11 | defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First 12 | Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 13 | amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted. 16 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an 17 | amended complaint or advise the court he wishes to stand by his current complaint. If he selects 18 | the latter option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 19 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 20 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form complaint. 21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 ( q oy — Dated: _ April 23, 2023 q——— 24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28 | materials in them must be made directly to prison officials.