(PC) Sahm v. Haile, 2:21-cv-01436

Plaintiff Stanley Carl Sahm, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action in Solano County Superior Court that Dr. B. Haile removed to federal court.
Complaint asserts federal claims (due process, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Eighth Amendment/cruel and unusual punishment) stemming from prison medical and housing incidents.
Alleged facts include a December 2, 2018 "bed move" causing pain, delay in ADA/administrative appeals processing, denial of arthritis and bursitis/sciatica medication, inadequate treatment for an ingrown toenail, and denial of single-cell status.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found the pleading does not allege what Dr. Haile personally did to cause any constitutional violation.
The court explained that delayed grievance processing does not give rise to a due process claim and that Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference requires more than negligence or a mere delay in care.
The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days; defendant’s request for a screening order and extension was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction/removal	Sahm asserts federal claims (due process, ADA, Eighth) supporting federal jurisdiction	Haile removed the action to federal court	Court found federal-question jurisdiction exists because the complaint raises federal claims
Sufficiency under § 1915A	Sahm contends Haile violated his federal rights based on listed incidents	Haile moved for screening/dismissal of frivolous or noncognizable claims	Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim because it lacks allegations of Haile's personal involvement
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Sahm alleges denial/delay of medication and inadequate treatment	Haile argues allegations show at most negligence or delay, not deliberate indifference	Court held plaintiff must plead a culpable state of mind (deliberate indifference); allegations are insufficient
Due process re grievance delays	Sahm claims delayed ADA/administrative appeals violated due process	Haile asserts that grievance delays do not create constitutional violations	Court held grievance delays do not state a due process claim
Amendment and defendant identification	Sahm may wish to clarify or add defendants/claims	Haile opposes vague, scattershot pleading	Court granted leave to amend but required a complete, standalone amended complaint naming only those personally involved

ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (improper removal requires remand; courts must examine jurisdiction)
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (federal courts have independent obligation to examine subject-matter jurisdiction)
Ultramar America, Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal-question jurisdiction exists if any claim arises under federal law)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for in forma pauperis pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts that raise entitlement to relief above speculative level)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements required to state a § 1983 claim against an individual defendant)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prisoner medical-care claims under the Eighth Amendment)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (requirement of personal involvement for § 1983 liability)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (grievance delays do not give rise to due process claims)