(PC) Anaya v. Herrington, 1:09-cv-01653

Plaintiff Richard Anaya is a California inmate suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ADA Title II, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
Claims center on deliberate indifference to medical needs by Defendants Lopez, Chen, and others at KVSP, including denial of a single-cell chrono and follow-up care.
Plaintiff alleges Hepatitis C, rectal prolapse, back pain, knee pain, and lack of ADA accommodations (grab bars, cell features), with alleged risk from housing in multi-person cells.
Third Amended Complaint filed August 26, 2011; court screens under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and evaluates for frivolousness and failure to state a claim.
Court sua sponte identifies potential Eighth Amendment and ADA claims, as well as a supplemental state-law medical malpractice claim against Chen.
Court recommends dismissal of the TAC for failure to state a claim, with one further bring-a-claim opportunity (fourth amended complaint) and potential dismissal if not timely amended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment: deliberate indifference by Lopez	Lopez denied single-cell chrono despite risk factors.	No substantial risk from lack of single-cell status; no deliberate indifference shown.	No Eighth Amendment claim against Lopez.
Eighth Amendment: deliberate indifference by Chen	Chen denied chrono and follow-up care.	Failure to show substantial risk or harm from denial of care.	No Eighth Amendment claim against Chen.
Eighth Amendment: supervisory liability	Supervisors failed to prevent violations.	No personal participation or policy causing violation.	No supervisory liability established.
ADA Title II: discrimination claim	Disability status entitles accommodations denied.	Plaintiff not shown exclusion from services due to disability.	ADA claim fails.
Supplemental jurisdiction over medical malpractice	Medical malpractice claim against Chen should be included.	State-law claim does not survive without federal claims.	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; TAC dismissed for failure to state a federal claim.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading must include plausible claims, not mere recitals)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires enough facts to state a plausible claim)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment claims)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of risk)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (isolated neglect does not prove deliberate indifference)
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (exercise of supplemental jurisdiction; state claims may be dismissed when federal claims fail)