Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pierre Renee Readus, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 27, 2026, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He named San Diego Sheriff Head Medical Officer Montgomery, physician Dr. Molina, and Sheriff’s Deputies Garibrey and Ortiz. The complaint concerned medical care while Readus was housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility in San Diego.
Readus alleged that he began experiencing chest pains on October 19, 2024, and repeatedly notified deputies and the watch tower over the following days. He said he eventually went “man down” on October 24 to obtain care, received Tums at the infirmary, and was told his chest pain related to stomach issues. He further alleged that an ultrasound appointment was missed after Garibrey falsely reported that he had refused it, that Ortiz permitted that refusal to be documented, and that another inmate received emergency assistance while his requests were ignored.
The court considered both the IFP application and the mandatory pre-answer screening required for a prisoner proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). That screening required dismissal of any complaint or portion that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought damages from immune defendants. The court applied the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted IFP status based on Readus’s certified inmate trust account statement, which showed an average monthly balance of $58.86, average monthly deposits of $66.90, and an available balance of $15.84. It assessed an initial partial filing fee of $13.38, collectible only if sufficient funds were available when the order was executed. Readus remained responsible for the full $350 statutory filing fee through installment payments, and the court directed collection of the initial fee and the remaining $336.62 balance under the statutory formula.
On the Eighth Amendment claims, the court held that allegations of negligence, medical malpractice, inadequate treatment, or even gross negligence alone did not establish deliberate indifference. It found no factual allegations that Montgomery knew Readus needed but did not receive an ultrasound or other medical care, so the asserted failure to supervise and train did not plausibly establish supervisory liability. It also found insufficient allegations that Garibrey or Ortiz knew of a serious medical need for the ultrasound and deliberately disregarded it. The court additionally rejected any claim premised solely on an inadequate grievance response because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a particular grievance procedure.
The equal protection claim failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Readus and the Latino inmate who was escorted to the infirmary were similarly situated, including whether their medical emergencies were comparable, or that a defendant treated Readus differently because of race. Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence or medical malpractice claims. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Readus until December 21, 2026, to file a complete amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies.
Key Takeaways
- Prisoner IFP complaints are subject to pre-answer screening under the same plausibility standard that governs failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Negligence or medical malpractice allegations alone do not satisfy the Eighth Amendment requirement of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
- A supervisor cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely for subordinates’ conduct without plausible allegations of personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection.
- An equal protection claim based on different treatment of another inmate requires plausible facts showing comparable circumstances and intentional discrimination because of protected status.
- The amended complaint must stand on its own, and defendants or claims not included in it will be considered waived.
Why It Matters
The order provides a claim-by-claim roadmap for amendment rather than entering a final dismissal of the action. Readus must allege facts showing that particular defendants knew of and deliberately disregarded a serious medical need, and any equal protection claim must connect the challenged treatment to race and a similarly situated comparator. The court also warned that failure to amend by the deadline could result in a final order dismissing the entire action for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute in compliance with the amendment order.
The ruling separates the financial permission to proceed from the merits of the pleading: IFP status was granted, but the complaint did not survive statutory screening. It also leaves any state-law claims outside the federal action at this stage through the court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction.