Jameson v. Rawers, et al., et al
Filing
81
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Defendants' 74 Motion to Dismiss be Denied; Objections Due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/22/2011. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 12/27/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BARRY S. JAMESON,
CASE NO.
1:03-cv-05593-LJO-MJS (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BE
DENIED
12
v.
13
SCOTT P. RAWERS, et al.,
(ECF No. 74)
14
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
15
/
16
17
Plaintiff Barry S. Jameson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2011,
19
the Court screened Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint and found that he had stated a
20
claim against Defendants Perry and Rees for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
21
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 62.) The Defendants filed a Motion
22
to Dismiss on August 31, 2011, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and
23
that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff filed an
24
opposition on September 16, 2011. (ECF No. 76.) The Defendants filed a reply and a
25
request for judicial notice on October 11, 2011. (ECF Nos. 79 & 80.)
26
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
27
“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint,” Schneider v.
28
California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), which must contain “a
1
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ,”
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
3
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
4
v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
5
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,
6
969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
7
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
8
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
9
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,”
10
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), and courts “are not required to
11
indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th
12
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
13
II.
14
ANALYSIS
The Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15
12(b)(6).
Perry and Rees argue that Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable Eighth
16
Amendment claim because his medical needs were not sufficiently serious and the
17
allegations of deliberate indifference rest solely on a disagreement with the Defendants’
18
medical opinions. Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
19
At the outset, Defendants are sure to appreciate that the points they raise here are
20
essentially the same ones this Court necessarily considered in screening Plaintiff’s
21
pleading. Re-review of those same pleadings is unlikely to produce a different result. Thus
22
a motion to dismiss at this juncture is unlikely to serve meaningful purpose and may in fact
23
slow the process and postpone review of the provable evidence related to this claim.
24
Nevertheless, the Court will address Defendants’ challenges to, and once again
25
review, those pleadings which, when presumed to be true, it finds sufficient to state a
26
cognizable claim.
27
A.
Failure to State A Claim
28
The Defendants argue in their motion and reply that the Fifth Amended Complaint
-2-
1
does not state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.
Plaintiff contends that the
2
Defendants’ conduct amounted to a failure to treat his serious medical needs.
3
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
4
inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439
5
F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
6
In terms of a serious medical need, Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered broken
7
bones and injuries to his head. The Defendants characterize these injuries and any lack
8
of treatment thereto as the kind of deprivation tolerated by the Eighth Amendment. (ECF
9
No. 74 at 9.) As stated in the March 9, 2011 Screening Order, allegations of broken bones
10
and head injuries are sufficiently serious to satisfy the first element of an Eighth
11
Amendment claim. (ECF No. 62.)
12
The Defendants insist that Plaintiff has not satisfied the deliberate indifference
13
element of his Eighth Amendment claim because his allegations amount to a disagreement
14
with the course of treatment provided. “[A] difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient
15
and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”
16
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To
17
prevail, a plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically
18
unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in
19
conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d
20
330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). A prisoner's mere disagreement with
21
diagnosis or treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild,
22
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
23
However, as the Court found in its Screening Order, Plaintiff has satisfied the
24
deliberate indifference standard by alleging that the Defendants failed to treat his serious
25
medical need. Defendant Perry declined Plaintiff’s request for treatment twice in January,
26
2003. On March 21, 2003, Plaintiff complained of the lingering effects of his injuries to
27
Defendant Rees and allegedly he too provided no treatment. Plaintiff alleged that both
28
Defendants were aware of his injuries and offered no treatment. The denial of all medical
-3-
1
attention for a serious medical condition may constitute deliberate indifference. Toussaint
2
v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986).
3
Plaintiff has stated a claim for inadequate medical care. The Court interprets
4
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as arising out of a complete denial of medical care for
5
a serious medical need. In his opposition, Plaintiff confirms that allegation. In their reply,
6
the Defendants renew the argument that Plaintiff’s claims are based on a disagreement
7
over course of treatment.1 Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against
8
Defendants Perry and Rees for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth
9
Amendment.
10
B.
Qualified Immunity
11
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Government
12
officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly
13
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
14
known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “Qualified immunity balances two
15
important interests - the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power
16
irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability
17
when they perform their duties reasonably,” Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815
18
(2009), and protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the
19
law,” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
20
In resolving a claim of qualified immunity, courts must determine whether, taken in
21
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Defendants subm itted portions of Plaintiff’s m edical records relevant to his allegations in
their Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 80.) The records were referenced in the Defendants’ reply.
(ECF No. 79 at 4, 6.) In ruling on a m otion to dism iss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a Court m ay consider
exhibits attached to the com plaint, m atters subject to judicial notice, or docum ents necessarily relied on by
the com plaint whose authenticity no party questions. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th
Cir. 2007); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-689 (9th Cir. 2001). W hile the docum ents m ay
be considered in the Court’s ruling, they offer no persuasive value as presented. The Defendants
identified each docum ent as a specific m edical record, but offered no explanation as to how the contents
of each docum ent related to their argum ents. Absent explanation, the Court was left with docum ents
containing illegible handwriting or text without context. The Court was unable to determ ine how the
docum ents supported the Defendants’ reply.
-4-
1
right, and if so, whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194,
2
201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2156 (2001); Delia v. City of Rialto, 621 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.
3
2010); Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 993 (9th Cir. 2009). While often beneficial to
4
address in that order, courts have discretion to address the two-step inquiry in the order
5
they deem most suitable under the circumstances. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 (overruling
6
holding in Saucier that the two-step inquiry must be conducted in that order, and the
7
second step is reached only if the court first finds a constitutional violation); Delia, 621 F.3d
8
at 1074-75; Mueller, 576 F.3d at 993-94.
9
Taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Fifth Amended Complaint
10
presented a cognizable claim against both Defendants for providing inadequate medical
11
care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. At the time the alleged violation occurred, it
12
was clearly established that prison officials cannot intentionally deny adequate medical
13
care. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 97. Any reasonable official should know that denial of
14
treatment to a patient complaining of broken bones and a head injury would constitute
15
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
16
Thus, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this motion.
17
III.
18
19
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be
DENIED.
20
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District
21
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
22
Within thirty days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party
23
may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
24
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
25
Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the
26
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
27
////
28
////
-5-
1
may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
2
(9th Cir. 1991).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
ci4d6
November 22, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?