(PC) Pena v. Sherman, 1:18-cv-01527

Background

Plaintiff Alfredo Rudy Pena, a state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deliberate indifference to a serious eye condition (uveitis) that recurred in December 2017.
Plaintiff contends his 2015 uveitis diagnosis was not in his medical file at SATF, and between December 4–12, 2017 he repeatedly sought care for a red, swollen, painful left eye.
Encounters at issue: Dec. 4 (RN Leif Agbayani gave Liquitears and told him to submit a form if worse); Dec. 7 (P&S Julius Metts again advised more time with Liquitears); Dec. 8 (Dr. Frank Chang examined with a black light and prescribed medication Plaintiff says was incorrect); Dec. 12 (RN Meshelle Lindsey referred him to Optometry).
Plaintiff alleges delays and wrong/insufficient treatment caused pain, headaches, blurred vision, and loss of vision; he sued multiple medical staff (14 named defendants plus Does), but factual allegations target only Agbayani, Metts, Chang, and Lindsey.
Procedural posture: complaint filed 2018; court previously granted leave to amend twice; magistrate judge screened the Second Amended Complaint and recommends dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a § 1983 claim and denies further leave to amend as futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prison medical treatment allegations state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim	Pena: defendants ignored his history and delayed correct treatment for recurrent uveitis, causing harm	Medical staff: records lacked the 2015 diagnosis; staff examined and treated him; at most negligence or difference of opinion	Court: Serious medical need pleaded, but no plausible facts showing subjective deliberate indifference by named caregivers; claim fails
Whether non‑alleged defendants can be liable without personal participation	Pena: named many staff in complaint	Defendants: no factual allegations showing personal acts by those defendants; respondeat superior not permitted	Court: Claims against defendants not specifically alleged are dismissed for lack of personal participation
Whether delay in referral/treatment amounted to constitutional violation because it worsened injury	Pena: delay led to worsened condition and vision loss	Defendants: even if delay occurred, no evidence staff knew of a substantial risk and consciously disregarded it; delay alone may show negligence not Eighth Amendment violation	Court: Plaintiff plausibly suffered harm from delay but failed to show the requisite subjective state of mind; insufficient for § 1983
Whether leave to amend should be granted again	Pena: previously amended; could argue further amendment might cure defects	Court/Defendants: plaintiff already given guidance and multiple chances	Court: Further amendment would be futile; recommend dismissal with prejudice and case closure

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must cross the plausibility threshold)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for prison medical care)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements for prison medical deliberate indifference claim)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (delay in treatment actionable only if it caused further harm)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (subjective knowledge requirement for deliberate indifference)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (official must actually draw inference of substantial risk)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (causal connection required for § 1983 liability)
Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court may deny leave to amend as futile)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (pro se complaints entitled to liberal amendment but leave may be denied if futile)