Taggart v. St. Clair et al

Filing 11

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM signed by District Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/13/2009. (FIRST Amended Complaint due 3/11/2009). If Plaintiffs Amended Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a strike. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. P ROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 19, 2008, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation C e n te r located in Jamestown, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint p u rs u a n t to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U .S.C . § 1914(a) to commence a civil action; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pa u p e ris ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 4]. The Court granted Plaintiff's M o tio n to Proceed IFP on July 18, 2008 [Doc. No. 5]. -10 8 cv 0 8 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION JESTER TAGGART, CDCR #F-29271, P l a i n t if f , vs . D R . JACK ST. CLAIR, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 08-0861 RTB (NLS) O R D E R SUA SPONTE DISMISSING C O M P L A I N T FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ 0 8c v 0 8 61 -D i s m is s . w p d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O n November 25, 2008, this matter was reassigned to District Judge Roger T. Benitez for all further proceedings [Doc. No. 9]. II. S CREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) T h e Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") obligates the Court to review complaints file d by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or d e ta in e d in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations o f criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary p ro gra m ," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). U n d e r these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any p o rtio n thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 2 0 3 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 4 4 3 , 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). B e fo re amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte d i sm i ss a l of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is frivo lo u s if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 3 2 4 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing a n IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of th e Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 1 9 1 5 (e ) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint th a t fails to state a claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discu ssin g 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). "[W ]h e n determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all a lle ga tio n s of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the p la in tiff. " Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) "p ara l lels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's d u ty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., -2- C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ 0 8c v 0 8 61 -D i s m is s . w p d 0 8 cv 0 8 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 3 9 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. B o n z e le t, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). Se c tio n 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person a c tin g under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived th e claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the U n ited States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled o n other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F .2 d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "through the period of July 2006 through D ec em b er 2007" the seven named Defendants "failed to respond to my medical situation." (C o m p l. at 3.) Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint the First Level Response to his administrative grie va n c e s which details the examinations and tests Plaintiff has received during the above m en tio n ed time frame. (See Compl., Exhibit "A." First Level Response, Log No. SCC-X-070 1 3 9 3 dated December 10, 2007.) In order to assert a claim under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care, P la in tif f must show that each individual prison doctor and medical staff member that he seeks to sue were "deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U .S. 25, 32 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Lopez v. Dep't of Health S e rv ic e s, 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (holding that private physicians who c o n tra c t with prisons to provide specialized medical services to indigent prisoners act under co lor of state law). In order to show deliberate indifference, an inmate must allege sufficient facts to indicate (1 ) that his medical need is "serious" and (2) that prison officials acted or failed to act in light o f that need with a "culpable state of mind." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991). While Plaintiff's allegations may be sufficient to allege a serious medical need, he has failed to a llege facts sufficient to demonstrate that any of the named Defendants were deliberately in d iffe re n t to that serious medical need. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff's Complaint d e m o n stra te that he was seen repeatedly by many different prison medical officials, provided -3- C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ 0 8c v 0 8 61 -D i s m is s . w p d 0 8 cv 0 8 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w ith a number of tests, diagnosed with a heart and gastrointestinal problem and prescribed m ed icatio n to relieve his symptoms. (See Compl., Exhibit A.) Plaintiff is seeking a transfer to a n o th e r facility that has "specialized required medical treatment" or an "outside independent sp ec ia lized facility." (Compl. at 3.) T h e indifference to medical needs rising to an Eighth Amendment claim must be s u b s ta n tia l; inadequate treatment due to malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not amount to a constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1 3 3 4 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff's claims against the named Defendants amounts to no more than a difference of opinion between medical professionals and their patient, and as such, is in s u ffic ie n t to show the "deliberate indifference" required to support a claim of cruel and u n u su al punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9 th Cir. 1996) (finding difference of opinion between a physician and prisoner concerning the a p p ro p ria te course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F .2 d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). A c c o rd in gly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a section 1983 claim u p o n which relief may be granted, and is therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend h is pleading to cure the defects set forth above. III. C ONCLUSION AND ORDER G o o d cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). /// -4- C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ 0 8c v 0 8 61 -D i s m is s . w p d 0 8 cv 0 8 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, if Plaintiff's Amended Complaint still fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 117779 (9th Cir. 1996). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2009 Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge C : \W IN D O W S \Te m p \n o te s 1 0 1 A A 1 \ 0 8c v 0 8 61 -D i s m is s . w p d -5- 0 8 cv 0 8 6 1

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?