Ronald Ramsey v. Alphonso Swaby et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND DENIAL OF REQUEST TO PROCEEDWITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, by no later than March 14, 2017, why the court should not recommend that the request to proceed without prepayment of fees be denied. Instead of filing a response to this order to show cause, Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this ord er. If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must be filed no later than March 14, 2017. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order to show cause or a First Amended Complaint on or before March 14, 2017, this court may recommend that his request to proceed without prepayment of fees be denied. (See Order for details.) (Attachments: # 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Packet) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD RAMSEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DR. ALPHONSO SWABY, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 16-9615-VBF (AGR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
COURT SHOULD NOT
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
REQUEST TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF
FILING FEES

18
19

The court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 14, 2017, why

20

this court should not recommend denial of his request to proceed without

21

prepayment of filing fees.
DISCUSSION

22
23

A.

Legal Standard

24

To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care,

25

a plaintiff must allege acts or omissions that constitute deliberate indifference to

26

his serious medical needs. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993);

27

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

28

1

Plaintiff is advised that "[a] difference of opinion between a physician and a

2

prisoner – or between medical professionals – concerning what medical care is

3

appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference." Hamby v. Hammond,

4

821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted). Instead:

5

[t]o show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff "must show that the

6

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable

7

under the circumstances" and that the defendants "chose this course

8

in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff's health.

9

Id.; see also Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986) ("state prison

10

authorities have wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical

11

treatment”).

12

B.

Analysis

13

The complaint’s allegations and exhibits allege differences of opinion

14

between a neurologist at Calipatria state prison, who prescribed shoe inserts in

15

August 2012, and (1) Dr. Cheng-Wu at CSP-LAC, who gave Plaintiff a medical

16

chrono that excluded shoe inserts and assessed Plaintiff as a medium risk patient

17

rather than a high risk patient in November 2012 and (2) Dr. Marcello at CSP-

18

LAC, who gave Plaintiff a medical chrono that did not contain medical devices

19

and assessed Plaintiff as a low risk patient in April 2013. (Compl. at 5-6.)

20

Plaintiff’s complaint about his grievances also allege differences of opinion.

21

Plaintiff alleges that, in his opinion, only a neurologist should have interviewed

22

Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Dr. Swaby conducted an examination at the

23

first level in 2015 that Plaintiff believes was insufficient. Dr. Morris, at the first

24

level, wrongly found no reason to modify the decision regarding shoe inserts

25

based on medical necessity. Dr. Francis claimed to have checked the computer

26

back to 2012 but found no prescription for shoe inserts. P. Finander, the chief

27

medical executive, did not find that Plaintiff had a medical prescription for shoe

28

inserts.
2

1

As discussed above, a difference of opinion between medical professionals

2

– or between Plaintiff and a medical professional – as to appropriate medical care

3

is insufficient to state a claim for deliberately indifferent medical care. Hamby,

4

821 F.3d at 1092; Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.

5

1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner and prison medical authorities).

6

Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the course of treatment doctors

7

chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that defendants

8

chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health.

9

Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). The complaint’s current

10

allegations are insufficient. E.g., Whitney v. Walker, 631 Fed. Appx. 493, 494

11

(9th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal).

12

ORDER

13

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show

14

cause in writing, by no later than March 14, 2017, why the court should not

15

recommend that the request to proceed without prepayment of fees be denied.

16

Instead of filing a response to this order to show cause, Plaintiff may file a

17

First Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this order. If

18

Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must be filed no later than

19

March 14, 2017; bear the docket number assigned in this case; be labeled "First

20

Amended Complaint"; and be complete in and of itself, without reference to the

21

original complaint, or any other pleading, attachment or document. Plaintiff is

22

free to attach additional pages to the form. The Clerk is directed to provide

23

Plaintiff with a blank Central District civil rights complaint form.

24
25
26
27
28

3

1

If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order to show cause or a First

2

Amended Complaint on or before March 14, 2017, this court may recommend

3

that his request to proceed without prepayment of fees be denied.

4
5
6

DATED: February 14, 2017

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4