Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al
Filing
199
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants 195 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/17: This action is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:09-cv-00749 DAD-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(Doc. No. 195)
16
17
18
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed on April 28, 2009. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6.)
19
On January 10, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge granted defendants’ request for
20
screening of plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations
21
recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claim alleged in his fifth amended complaint
22
for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against
23
defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez in their individual capacities and
24
that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action. (Doc. No. 195.) Those
25
findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and all defendants appearing in this action
26
and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after
27
service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
28
findings and recommendations on February 9, 2017. (Doc. No. 10.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), the undersigned has
2
conducted a de novo review of the case, including plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s primary
3
objection to the pending findings and recommendations is the magistrate judge’s conclusion that
4
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant Dr. Nguyen for deliberate indifference to his
5
serious medical need based on Dr. Nguyen’s alleged refusal to refer plaintiff to an
6
ophthalmologist. Plaintiff argues that, given all of the information provided in his file, in the
7
report from a contract optometrist, and plaintiff’s statements regarding his vision, pain, and fear
8
of going blind, Dr. Nguyen must have been deliberately indifferent in not referring him to an
9
ophthalmologist. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.)
As noted in the pending findings and recommendations, Dr. Nguyen’s alleged refusal to
10
11
refer plaintiff to an ophthalmologist based on the optometrist’s recommendation and instead
12
renew plaintiff’s glaucoma medications amounts to nothing more than a disagreement between
13
medical providers regarding the appropriate course of treatment and is not sufficient to support a
14
claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. “A difference of opinion between a
15
physician and the prisoner—or between medical professionals—concerning what medical care is
16
appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987
17
(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on
18
other grounds in Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman,
19
680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.
20
1986)).
21
Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that the allegations of
22
plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint failed to link Dr. Nguyen to plaintiff’s failure to receive his
23
renewed medication. Plaintiff contends that magistrate judge recognized that a primary care
24
physician, such as Dr. Nguyen, is charged by the relevant regulations with following up with a
25
patient’s treatment, including the renewal and dispensing of medications. (Doc. No. 196 at 3;
26
Doc. No. 195 at 14.) Having reviewed plaintiff’s objections and the allegations of his fifth
27
amended complaint, the undersigned agrees that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to
28
support a claim that Dr. Nguyen was responsible for the renewal and dispensing of medications
2
1
pursuant to regulation. The relevant portion of the findings and recommendations reflect
2
plaintiff’s allegations that Dr. Nguyen agreed to renew plaintiff’s medications and a primary care
3
provider is responsible for following up with the inmate-patient until a specialist appointment
4
occurs. (Doc. No. 195 at 13, 14; Doc. No. 193 at 24, ¶ 41.) Moreover, in his fifth amended
5
complaint plaintiff alleged that Dr. Nguyen was to “deliver medically necessary heath care
6
services” and “treat the identified medical condition with quality medical care.” (Doc. No. 193 at
7
25, ¶ 54.) As found by the magistrate judge, plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint failed to include
8
factual allegations linking Dr. Nguyen to the alleged failure to renew plaintiff’s medications. As
9
recommended by the assigned magistrate judge, plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Nguyen will be
10
dismissed from this action.
11
In his objections, plaintiff also challenges the recommendation of the magistrate judge that
12
his claims of emotional distress and those brought under the continuing violations doctrine be
13
dismissed. Plaintiff represents that he is not seeking to present state law claims or to extend the
14
time to include new defendants in this action. Rather, plaintiff asserts that he was merely using
15
these purported claims “to illustrate the pain, anguish and distress caused plaintiff by these
16
defendants over the last 17 years. And to show that the defendants listed, violated plaintiff
17
beyond the time frame set by this court.” (Doc. No. 196 at 3.) In this regard, plaintiff’s
18
objections provide no basis upon which the undersigned could disagree with the findings and
19
recommendations.
20
For all of the reasons set forth above:
21
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 195) issued on January 10, 2017, are
22
adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious
23
24
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment brought against defendants Wu, McGuiness,
25
Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez as alleged in his fifth amended complaint (Doc. No. 193);
3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s
26
27
failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and
28
/////
3
1
4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings
2
consistent with this order.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated:
April 17, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?