Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shant Der-Boghossian, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil-rights action on July 14, 2026. The original complaint concerned events at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, and California State Prison Corcoran. Screened on August 13, 2026, it was found to state no cognizable claims because it largely presented a chronology involving numerous providers and collectively attributed conduct to 'Defendants' without connecting particular facts to each defendant. The court supplied legal standards and granted leave to amend.
The first amended complaint, filed October 13, 2026, named the State of California, CDCR, Oscar Galloway, Chief Executive Officer for California Health Care Services at CSATF, Edward Martin, CEO for CCHS at CSP, and providers Anthony Dike, Christopher Uklomogbe, Matthew See, and Melanie Brooks. Der-Boghossian alleged inadequate treatment of severe exocrine pancreatic insufficiency and denial of a medically appropriate therapeutic diet, describing weight loss, repeated medical requests, grievances, and accommodation requests while housed at CSATF and CSP.
He sought compensatory and punitive damages of $5,000,000 from each defendant plus preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. A separate October 26, 2026 motion requested a knowledgeable EPI specialist and a therapeutic diet at California Men's Colony, his current facility. The November 6, 2026 findings and recommendations screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and addressed that motion; they were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with objections due within fourteen days, and were not a final judgment or adopted ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference and ADA claims proceed past screening only against Dike, Uklomogbe, See, and Brooks. Liberally construed, the amended complaint alleged that those providers received test results indicating malnourishment and weight loss and written complaints describing digestive symptoms and pain, yet refused additional pancreatic-enzyme medication and a therapeutic diet — sufficient at screening, although negligence, malpractice, or a mere difference of medical opinion would not establish deliberate indifference. The ADA claim survived against the same four defendants because severe EPI allegedly qualified him as disabled and the providers knew he required a therapeutic diet but refused the accommodation.
The court recommended dismissal without further leave to amend of the deliberate-indifference, supervisory-liability, ADA, and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against Galloway, and the deliberate-indifference, supervisory-liability, and ADA claims against Martin. The administrators' alleged conduct — reviewing grievances and medical records and confirming that a treatment plan was in place that included medication dosing prescribed by a specialist in gastroenterology — did not allege subjective knowledge of and disregard for a serious risk, personal participation in treatment, or an unconstitutional institutional policy; the due-process claim failed because Der-Boghossian alleged only disagreement with grievance denials after using the appeal process. Claims against the State of California and CDCR were recommended for dismissal on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds, and the court separately ordered the clerk to terminate CSATF and CSP Corcoran as docketed defendants.
The motion for preliminary injunctive relief was recommended for denial. CDCR was not a proper defendant under the sovereign-immunity analysis, and no individual employee at California Men's Colony had been sued, so the court lacked jurisdiction over the entities Der-Boghossian sought to enjoin; independently, he did not show likely success on the merits, that the balance of equities tipped in his favor, or that an injunction served the public interest.
Key Takeaways
- Only the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference and ADA claims against Dike, Uklomogbe, See, and Brooks were recommended to survive prisoner-complaint screening.
- The claims against Galloway and Martin failed because grievance review and confirmation of an existing treatment plan do not show the personal participation, subjective disregard of risk, or unconstitutional policy those theories require.
- The due-process claim against Galloway and the claims against California and CDCR were recommended for dismissal — the latter on sovereign-immunity grounds — all without further leave to amend.
- The preliminary-injunction request was recommended denied because the court lacked jurisdiction over the entities sought to be enjoined and Der-Boghossian did not establish the required injunction factors.
- These were findings and recommendations subject to district-judge review and a fourteen-day objection period, apart from the immediate order directing the clerk to revise the docket.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how prisoner screening can preserve defendant-specific medical allegations while removing claims built on administrative grievance review or generalized supervisory responsibility, and it separates the pleading threshold for deliberate-indifference and accommodation claims from the substantially higher showing required for immediate injunctive relief.
For Der-Boghossian, the recommended disposition would narrow the action to four providers and two theories while leaving his requested specialist and diet unavailable through the preliminary motion; the outcome remained contingent on the district judge's review of the recommendations and any timely objections.