Dennis Dale Catchings v. J. Lewis et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the da te of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff is further advised that is he no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS DALE CATCHINGS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. CV 17-3293 ODW (SS)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

v.

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

J. LEWIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
C.C.H.C.S.,

15

LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendant.

16
17
18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION

20
21

On

May

2,

2017,

Dennis

Dale

Catchings

(“Plaintiff”),

a

22

California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint

23

alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the American with

24

Disabilities

25

(“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1).

26
27
28

Act

(“ADA”),

and

42

U.S.C.

§

2000.

(Complaint

1

Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial

2

screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks

3

redress

4

§ 1915A(a). This Court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion

5

thereof,

6

frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which

7

relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

8

who is immune from such relief.

9

also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)

10

(en banc). For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is DISMISSED

11

with leave to amend.1

from

a

before

governmental

service

of

entity

process

or

if

employee.

the

28

complaint

U.S.C.

(1)

is

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see

12
13

II.

14

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

15
16

Plaintiff sues J. Lewis (“Defendant”), Deputy Director of

17

Policy and Risk Management Services for California Correctional

18

Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) in both his individual and official

19

capacities.

(Compl. at 3).2

20
21

The substantive allegations of the Complaint allege that, as

22

an

23

Corrections and Rehabilitation,” Plaintiff filed an ADA Reasonable

24

Modification or Accommodation Request for a “walking cane, back

25
26

inmate

“in

the

custody

of

the

California

Department

of

Magistrate judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval of the district judge.
See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
1

27
28

The Court will cite to the Complaint and its attachments as though
they were consecutively paginated.
2

2

1

brace, mattress supporter, mobility impaired vest, and a lower tier

2

chrono [sic] to no avail.”

3

states

4

(Id.).

that

Defendant

(Id. at 6).

denied

The Complaint further

Plaintiff’s

third

level

appeal.

5
6

Attachments to the Complaint provide further detail regarding

7

Plaintiff’s claims.

8

at the California State Prison-Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”).

9

(Id. at 11). Plaintiff’s initial Reasonable Accommodation Request,

10

dated September 13, 2016, stated that he had “a physical disability

11

due

12

distances, climbing stairs/sitting and laying down.”

13

September 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed an appeal, stating that the

14

prison denied his accommodation request “without having [him]

15

examined by a doctor, discriminating against [him].”

to

lower

back

Plaintiff was at all relevant times an inmate

pain”

and

was

“having

difficulty

walking

(Id.).

On

(Id. at 10).

16
17

On February 15, 2017, Defendant, on behalf of CCHCS, denied

18

Plaintiff’s third level appeal because there was “no documentation

19

that [Plaintiff’s] primary care provider determined [that there

20

was]

[sic],

mattress

21

supporter, mobility vest, back brace and walking cane.”

(Id. at

22

8).

23

attended a follow-up primary care physician evaluation and received

24

an x-ray showing mild degenerative changes of the lumbar spine,

25

noting that there was a plan of care in place that Plaintiff’s

26

doctor had discussed with him.

a

medical

necessity

for

a

lower

tier

Defendant also wrote that on October 24, 2016, Plaintiff

(Id.).

27
28
3

1

Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in compensatory damages for “pain and

2

suffering” and injunctive relief ordering CCHCS to accommodate his

3

request for the following “medical necessities: (1) [a] walking

4

cane, (2) [a] back brace. (3) [a] mattress, (4) [a] mobility

5

impaired vest, [and] (5) [a] lower tier chrono.”

(Id. at 7).

6
7

III.

8

DISCUSSION

9
10

Under

28

U.S.C.

§

1915A(b),

the

Court

must

dismiss

the

11

Complaint due to pleading defects.

12

a pro se litigant leave to amend his defective complaint unless

13

“it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

14

could not be cured by amendment.”

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,

15

1212

and

16

omitted).

17

clear” that the defects of Plaintiff’s Complaint could not be cured

18

by amendment.

19

to amend.

(9th

Cir.

2012)

(citation

However, the Court must grant

internal

quotation

marks

For reasons discussed below, it is not “absolutely

Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave

20
21
22

A.

Lewis Is An Improper Defendant Because Plaintiff Does Not Have
A Right To A Particular Grievance Procedure Or Outcome

23
24

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s claims is that Defendants wrongly

25

denied his request for reasonable accommodations.

26

Lewis’s only involvement in the denial was that as the Deputy

27

Director of Health Care Appeals for the CCHCS, he signed the letter

28

denying

Plaintiff’s

third

level
4

grievance

(Compl. at 5).

appeal.

Though

a

1

prisoner must “exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a

2

lawsuit concerning prison conditions,” Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d

3

813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)), the denial

4

of

5

liability.

6

1999).

7

particular grievance process.

8

Cir. 1988).

a

grievance,

without

more,

is

insufficient

to

establish

See Shehee v. Luttrell, 1999 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.

Additionally,

there

is

no

constitutional

right

to

a

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639 (9th

9
10

Here, Plaintiff merely alleges that Defendant denied his

11

appeal.

(Compl. at 5).

12

constitutional

13

grievance process.

14

allegedly unconstitutional conduct is ‘the denial of administrative

15

grievances or the failure to act, the defendant cannot be liable

16

under § 1983.’”

17

(E.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300).

18

the Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend.

claim

However, a plaintiff “cannot state a

based

on

his

dissatisfaction

with

the

Where the defendant’s only involvement in the

Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1157
Accordingly,

19
20

B.

Plaintiff Fails To Allege A Deliberate Indifference Claim

21
22

Plaintiff attempts to state a constitutional claim based on

23

the failure to accommodate his medical needs.

To state an Eighth

24

Amendment claim based on a prisoner’s medical treatment, a prisoner

25

must demonstrate that the defendant was “deliberately indifferent”

26

to his “serious medical needs.”

27

1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

28

prisoner must demonstrate that “failure to treat a prisoner’s

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

To establish a “serious medical need,” the

5

1

condition

could

result

in

further

significant

2

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”

3

injury

or

the

1096 (citation omitted).

Jett, 439 F.3d at

4
5

To establish the defendant’s “deliberate indifference” to a

6

serious

medical

need,

a

plaintiff

must

demonstrate:

“(a)

a

7

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or

8

possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.”

9

(Id.).

Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials

10

deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or

11

it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide

12

medical care.”

13

been subjectively aware of a serious risk of harm and must have

14

consciously disregarded that risk.

(Id.) (citations omitted).

The defendant must have

15
16

The Complaint fails to state a deliberate indifference claim.

17

First,

the

Complaint’s

conclusory

language

does

not

clearly

18

establish that Plaintiff has or had a serious medical need. (Compl.

19

at 5).

20

complaint is lower back pain that was treated with Tylenol.

21

at 17).

22

medical need.”

23

deliberate indifference to that serious medical need.

Exhibits attached to the Complaint indicate that his chief
(Id.

It is not clear that Plaintiff’s back pain was a “serious
Even if it were, Plaintiff has not demonstrated

24
25

The

Complaint

also

fails

to

allege

that

Defendant

was

26

subjectively aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs but chose

27

to

28

Defendant notes that Plaintiff attended a follow-up appointment

ignore

them.

In

the

letter

6

denying

Plaintiff’s

appeal,

1

with

2

disease in the lumbar spine, and had a “plan of care” in place that

3

his physician reviewed with him.

4

demonstrate a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim.

5

Furthermore, the named defendant does not appear to be a proper

6

defendant for such a claim, as he did not provide medical treatment

7

to Plaintiff nor was he involved in Plaintiff’s medical care.

8

Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert

9

a deliberate indifference claim, the claim is dismissed, but with

10

his

doctor,

received

an

x-ray

showing

(Id.).

mild

degenerative

These exhibits do not

leave to amend.

11
12

C.

Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under The ADA

13
14

Plaintiff also unsuccessfully attempts to state a claim for

15

relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.

16

§§ 12101 et seq.

17

entity’ from discriminating against a ‘qualified individual with a

18

disability on account of that individual’s disability,’ [] covers

19

inmates in state prisons.”

20

524 U.S. 206, 208 (1998) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12132).

21

compliance with the Act, “Title II authorizes suits by private

22

citizens,” including prisoners, “for money damages against public

23

entities that violate § 12132.”

24

151, 154 (2006) (sovereign immunity does not protect states from

25

ADA claims by state prisoners).

Title II of the ADA, which “prohibits a ‘public

Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr. v. Yeskey,
To achieve

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S.

26
27
28
7

1
2

To state a claim under § 12132 of Title II, a plaintiff must
allege that:

3
4

“(1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is

5

otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the

6

benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or

7

activities;

8

participation in or denied the benefits of the public

9

entity’s

(3)

services,

he

was

either

programs,

or

excluded

activities,

from

or

was

10

otherwise discriminated against by the public entity;

11

and

12

discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.”

(4)

such

exclusion,

denial

of

benefits,

or

13
14

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir.

15

2010) (inmate’s failure to show that his “exclusion from outdoor

16

recreation [by jail officers] was by reason of his depression” was

17

fatal to his Title II claim) (quoting McGary v. City of Portland,

18

386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004)).

19
20

“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not

21

inadequate treatment for disability.”

Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1022

22

(emphasis added) (county jail’s failure to “lessen [inmate’s]

23

depression” by offering programs or activities “is not actionable

24

under the ADA”).

25

does not state a claim under the ADA.

26

Madigan, 84 F.3d 426, 429 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he Act would not be

27

violated by a prison’s simply failing to attend to the medical

28

needs of its disabled prisoners . . . . The ADA does not create a

The mere provision of inadequate medical care

8

Id. (citing Bryant v.

1

remedy for medical malpractice.”)); see also Elbert v. N.Y. State

2

Dept. of Corr. Servs., 751 F. Supp. 2d 590, 595 (S.D. N.Y. 2010)

3

(“Courts routinely dismiss ADA suits by disabled inmates that

4

allege inadequate medical treatment, but do not allege that the

5

inmate was treated differently because of his or her disability.”)

6

(citing cases); Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1016

7

(N.D. Ohio 2004) (inmate failed to state ADA claim where he alleged

8

only that the prison had refused to provide him with a diabetic

9

diet, but did not allege that prison officials denied the him “the

10

benefits of any services, programs, or activities provided for

11

other

12

discrimination because of his diabetes”).

non-disabled

inmates,

or

that

they

subjected

him

to

13
14

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not establish an ADA

15

claim.

Plaintiff must allege facts showing that the prison’s

16

purported refusal to accommodate his disability prevented him from

17

enjoying the benefits of services, programs or activities provided

18

to non-disabled prisoners, and that he was discriminated against

19

because of his disability.

20

dismissed, with leave to amend.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is

21
22

IV.

23

CONCLUSION

24
25

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is dismissed with

26

leave to amend.

If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action,

27

he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum

28

and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint.
9

In any

1

amended complaint, the Plaintiff shall cure the defects described

2

above.

3

allegations that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted

4

in the original complaint.

5

shall be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation

6

“First Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this

7

action.

8

complaint in this matter.

Plaintiff

shall

not

include

new

defendants

or

new

The First Amended Complaint, if any,

It shall not refer in any manner to any previously filed

9
10

In

any

amended

complaint,

Plaintiff

should

confine

his

11

allegations to those operative facts supporting each of his claims.

12

Plaintiff

13

Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain statement

14

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

15

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil

16

rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of

17

which is attached.

18

identify the nature of each separate legal claim and make clear

19

what specific factual allegations support each of his separate

20

claims.

21

concise and to omit irrelevant details.

22

Plaintiff to cite case law or include legal argument.

23

is also advised to omit any claims for which he lacks a sufficient

24

factual basis.

is

advised

that

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to keep his statements
It is not necessary for
Plaintiff

25
26

Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file

27

a First Amended Complaint or failure to correct the deficiencies

28

described above, will result in a recommendation that this action
10

1

be dismissed with prejudices for failure to prosecute and obey

2

court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3

Plaintiff is further advised that is he no longer wishes to pursue

4

this action,

he may

5

Dismissal

in

accordance

6

41(a)(1).

A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s

7

convenience.

voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of
with

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

8
9

DATED:

June 2, 2017

10
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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