Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al
Filing
262
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendant Jeffreys' Motion to Dismiss 218 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/30/2018: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DEFENDANT JEFFREYS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
(ECF No. 218)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
16
Findings and Recommendations
17
18
I.
Introduction
19
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
20
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2017, the
21
undersigned issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s fifth
22
amended complaint against Defendants Wu, McGuinness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez for
23
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but all
24
other claims and Defendants be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
25
granted. (ECF No. 195.) Those findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the
26
assigned District Judge on April 18, 2017. (ECF No. 199.)
27
28
On June 19, 2017, Defendant Jeffreys filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By this motion, Defendant Jeffreys seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth
1
1
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Jeffreys and dismiss Defendant
2
Jeffreys from this action on the ground that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant
3
Jeffreys upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 218, 219.) On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff
4
opposed the motion. (ECF No. 224.) No reply was filed, and the deadline to file a reply has
5
expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
6
7
For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Defendant Jeffreys’ motion
to dismiss be granted.
8
II.
Summary of Relevant Allegations in the Fifth Amended Complaint
9
Plaintiff is currently a state prisoner housed at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
10
California. At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff was housed at the
11
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California.
12
Plaintiff alleges that he was housed at CSATF from 2000 to 2012. While there, he was
13
diagnosed with Open Angle Glaucoma (“OAG”) and placed on a treatment program. Plaintiff
14
asserts that OAG is a serious medical condition that, if left undiagnosed and treated, would lead
15
to blindness. Plaintiff further alleges that none of the Defendants are eye specialists or equipped
16
to handle Plaintiff’s OAG, so they repeatedly required and requested services from eye
17
specialists. Defendants allegedly denied or delayed the necessary treatment for Plaintiff on a
18
regular basis, without consulting specialists or documenting the reasons for their alleged
19
deviations from standard procedure.
20
To treat his OAG, Plaintiff was prescribed the medication Timilol, in various strengths.
21
On May 23, 2005, Plaintiff requested renewal of his Glaucoma medication, which was scheduled
22
to expire on June 7, 2005. Plaintiff again requested renewal on June 8 and July 12, 2005, but the
23
medication was not renewed until August 2005.
24
On June 28, 2005, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Jeffreys and conveyed his concern
25
about going so long without his Glaucoma medication. Plaintiff informed Defendant Jeffreys that
26
he suffered from increased pressure in his left eye and feared going blind. Defendant Jeffreys
27
told Plaintiff to bring his medical request to the clinic window and he would personally take care
28
of the prescription refill. The next day, Plaintiff followed Defendant Jeffrey’s instructions, but
2
1
the medication was not refilled.
2
III.
3
Defendant Jeffreys’ Motion to Dismiss
A. Legal Standard
4
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, and
5
dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
6
alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42
7
(9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
8
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible
9
on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
10
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242;
11
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the well-
12
pled factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
13
party. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown,
14
504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 996–97 (9th
15
Cir. 2006); Morales v. City of L.A., 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, prisoners
16
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and
17
to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)
18
(citations omitted).
19
B. Deliberate Indifference in Violation of the Eighth Amendment
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate
20
21
must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
22
1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for
23
deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by
24
demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury
25
or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant's response to the need
26
was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122
27
(9th Cir. 2012).
28
///
3
1
Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and
2
fails to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010).
3
“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v. Chung,
4
391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown where there was a “purposeful act or failure to
5
respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” and the indifference caused harm, Jett, 439
6
F.3d at 1096. The prison official must be aware of facts from which he could make an inference
7
that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must make the inference. Farmer v.
8
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
C. Parties’ Positions
9
10
Defendant Jeffreys argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support a
11
cognizable claim against him for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of
12
the Eighth Amendment. Defendant Jeffreys contends that, even assuming that Plaintiff placed
13
him on notice of a serious medical need when they spoke on June 28, 2005, Plaintiff nonetheless
14
failed to plead facts sufficient to conclude that Defendant Jeffreys purposefully or intentionally
15
failed to respond to that need. Defendant Jeffreys notes that Plaintiff’s prescription for Timilol
16
had already expired when they spoke, and without a valid physician’s order, Defendant Jeffreys,
17
as a Registered Nurse, could not have renewed or refilled the prescription. Defendant Jeffreys
18
further argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Jeffreys was at the clinic window
19
when Plaintiff delivered his refill request, or that Defendant was otherwise aware that Plaintiff
20
had done so.
21
In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that the motion to dismiss is without merit, and sets
22
forth various authorities regarding the applicable pleading standards. Plaintiff argues that Federal
23
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires no more than a short, plain, summary of facts to give fair
24
notice of the claim asserted. Plaintiff further argues that pro se litigants are held to a less
25
stringent standard than that of an attorney, and prisoners should have no need to jump through
26
procedural hoops in order to protect federally created rights.
27
///
28
///
4
1
2
D. Discussion
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain “a short and
3
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
5
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
6
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
7
While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
8
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
9
marks and citation omitted).
10
Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to
11
allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct
12
alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d
13
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient,
14
and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
15
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
16
The Court notes that all of the authorities relied upon by Plaintiff predate the Supreme
17
Court’s rulings in Iqbal and Twombly. While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff’s allegations
18
must be liberally construed, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court
19
will neither “supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” Litmon v. Harris,
20
768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014), nor “indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart
21
Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009).
22
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts, in the complaint or in opposition to the motion to
23
dismiss, that would demonstrate Defendant Jeffreys’ purposeful act or failure to act in response to
24
Plaintiff’s medical need. As noted above, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Jeffreys was
25
present at the clinic or at the clinic window when Plaintiff submitted his refill request, nor does
26
Plaintiff allege that Defendant Jeffreys was aware that Plaintiff had complied with his instructions
27
to submit the refill request to the clinic window. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations
28
fail to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant
5
1
Jeffreys.
2
IV.
Conclusion and Recommendation
3
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint fails to state a claim for deliberate
4
indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Jeffreys. Despite being provided with
5
the relevant pleading and legal standards and granted leave to amend multiple times, Plaintiff has
6
been unable to cure the deficiencies and further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith,
7
203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
8
9
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Jeffreys’ motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 218) be GRANTED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
11
Judge assigned to the case, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being
12
served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the
13
Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
14
Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
15
time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on
16
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
17
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
January 30, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?