Jones v. Choudhury et al
Filing
9
ORDER DISMISSING Complaint For Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/26/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
LARRY D. JONES,
11
Plaintiff,
JAYANTA CHOUDHURY, M.D., et al.,
14
1:10-cv-02063-GBC (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
v.
12
13
CASE NO.
(ECF No. 8)
Defendants.
CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
/
15
16
SCREENING ORDER
17
18
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
19
Plaintiff Larry D. Jones (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the California
20
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma
21
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
22
on November 8, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on November 22,
23
2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff’s original complaint
24
25
26
was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint on July 21, 2011. (ECF No. 8.)
27
1
1
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is now before this Court for screening. For the
2
reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable
3
claims.
4
5
II.
SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
6
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
7
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has
9
raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which
10
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
11
12
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
13
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
14
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
15
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
16
17
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
18
19
not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
20
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
21
(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set
22
forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its
23
face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
24
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
25
///
26
27
//
2
1
III.
2
3
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this action for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Jayanta Choudhury,
4
5
6
M.D.; David I. Rohrdonz, M.D.; N. Bair, R.N.; Jajodia, M.D.; Albena V. Dimitrova, M.D.;
Kristie Perkins, Lab.; Nicholas Hamilton, Lab.; Maggie, PCA; and Chantal, R.N.
7
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On October 27, 2008, Defendant Jojodia assisted by
8
Defendants Rohdanz and Bair performed surgery on Plaintiff. During the surgery, a hole
9
was accidentally cut in Plaintiff’s stomach. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital the
10
same day by Defendant Rohdanz. On October 28 and 29, 2008, Plaintiff had a GI bleed
11
12
and didn’t know it. On October 30, 2008, Defendant Dimitrova ordered that Plaintiff have
13
a blood transfusion which was performed by Defendant Hamilton Nicholas. A lab test was
14
requested by Defendant Perkins. Plaintiff did not give his consent to this. On October 31,
15
2008, another blood transfusion was ordered by Defendant Choudhury and performed by
16
Defendants Chantal and Maggie without Plaintiff’s consent. Defendant Choudhury then
17
performed an endoscopy and applied to metal clips to stop the bleeding in Plaintiff’s
18
19
stomach.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IV.
ANALYSIS
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.
27
3
1
42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal
2
Constitution and laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir.
3
1997) (internal quotations omitted).
4
5
6
7
A.
Eighth Amendment Claims
Plaintiff appears to be alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
8
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
9
inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439
10
F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The
11
12
two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical
13
need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further
14
significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s
15
response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting
16
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,
17
WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations
18
19
omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
20
prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439
21
F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). In order to state a claim for violation of
22
the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support a claim that the
23
named defendants “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Plaintiff’s] health . .
24
. .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
25
In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that
26
27
a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be
4
1
substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this
2
cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)
3
(citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in
4
5
diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical
6
mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a
7
constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106;
8
see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin, 974
9
F.2d at 1050, overruled on other grounds, WMX, 104 F.3d at 1136. Even gross negligence
10
is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.
11
12
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).
13
Plaintiff alleges that he had a some kind of surgery, during which his stomach was
14
accidentally lacerated, had several blood transfusions, and finally had another surgery to
15
repair the damage caused by the first surgery.
16
17
Again, as currently pleaded, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. Plaintiff states that he had surgery,
18
and was treated for the accidental laceration when Defendants figured out what was
19
20
21
wrong. He appears to allege negligence or perhaps medical malpractice neither of which
support a claim under Section 1983.
22
Plaintiff was previously notified of the relevant legal standards and the deficiencies
23
in his original complaint. In fact, the Court noted that it appeared Plaintiff was claiming
24
negligence or medical malpractice, both of which are state claims and will not be
25
addressed here unless and until he stated a constitutional violation. His Second Amended
26
27
Complaint again fails to indicate any constitutional violations. Because Plaintiff’s First
5
1
Amended Complaint again fails to state a Section 1983 claim against any named
2
Defendant, the Court will dismiss this action without further leave to amend.
3
B.
State Law Claims
4
Plaintiff appears to be alleging that Defendants committed medical malpractice or
5
6
medical negligence, which are state law claims. However, the Court does not reach the
7
viability of Plaintiff’s state law as it will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law
8
claims unless Plaintiff is able to state a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a);
9
Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001).
10
V.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
11
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any Section
12
13
1983 claims upon which relief may be granted against the named Defendants. Under Rule
14
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely given when
15
justice so requires.” In addition, “[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all
16
possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
17
Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). However, in this action, Plaintiff filed two complaints
18
19
and received substantial guidance from the Court in its Screening Order. (ECF Nos. 1, 7,
20
& 8.) Even after receiving the Court’s guidance, Plaintiff failed to make alterations or to
21
include additional facts to address the noted deficiencies. Because of this, the Court finds
22
that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and
23
therefore orders that further leave to amend not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
24
//
25
26
///
27
6
1
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action
2
be DISMISSED in its entirety, WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim upon which
3
relief may be granted.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated:
1j0bbc
July 26, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
7
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?