Chavarria v. Green et al
Filing
10
ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint or Notify the Court of his Willingness to Proceed on Cognizable Claims; Response Due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Case No.: 1:10 cv 02324 LJO GSA PC
ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,
Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY
THE COURT OF HIS WILLINGNESS TO
PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS
vs.
P. A. GREEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
14
RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), brings this civil rights action
against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at PVSP. Plaintiff names the
following individual defendants: P. A. Green; P.A. Wilson; Dr. Duenas; Dr. Igbinosa.
Prior to Plaintiff’s incarceration, he suffered injuries as a result of being shot several
times by police. Plaintiff was shot in the chest, kidney, spleen, colon and thoracic spine.
Plaintiff underwent two separate surgeries to address the damage. Plaintiff alleges that since his
incarceration, he has needed constant treatment and pain management.
1
1
2
Plaintiff alleges that his treatment “took a significant turn for the worst” while at PVSP.
Plaintiff alleges that he has been prescribed Morphine Sulphate “for several years,” and that, “on
3
more than one occasion, Pleasant Valley Prison Officials have allowed Plaintiff’s medication(s)
4
to expire due to negligence.”
5
6
Plaintiff had been receiving a dose of Morphine Sulphate of 30 milligrams twice daily
and 1200 milligrams of Gabapentin three times daily to relieve pain caused by the gunshot
7
injuries. Plaintiff had been prescribed these pain medications at these doses “for several years.”
8
At some point, Plaintiff’s dosages were reduced to 15 milligrams of Morphine Sulphate twice
9
10
daily and 300 milligrams of Gabapentin twice daily.
Plaintiff alleges that Morphine Sulphate is “highly addictive” and that when it is
11
discontinued “cold turkey,” he suffers from severe delirium tremens (DTs) as a result of
12
withdrawal. Plaintiff alleges that each time his medication was discontinued because he had not
13
seen his primary care provider “due to prison overcrowding,” he suffered severe DTs, which
14
caused constant and severe pain. Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions, this condition lasted
15
“for days,” and was ignored by medical staff. Plaintiff “spent several weeks total unable to sleep,
16
eat, walk, or even to use the bathroom due to pain caused by these injuries.”
17
Plaintiff specifically alleges that between the dates of January 2008 and November 2010,
18
he informed Dr. Igbinosa of his severe pain and “lack of a continued medical regimen and the
19
fact that he hadn’t been seeing his doctors as scheduled.” Dr. Igbinosa advised Plaintiff to file a
20
grievance regarding the issue. Plaintiff alleges that his medication was discontinued after several
21
of these meetings, “due to Dr. Igbinosa’s failure to correct the problem raised.”
22
When Plaintiff sought an explanation from Defendant Green as to why his medication
23
had been reduced, he was told that Defendant Green was under orders by his supervisor to “cut
24
down everyone’s meds,” and “reduce the narcotics on this facility.” Green informed Plaintiff
25
that he was “just a casualty of my orders.”
26
27
28
When Plaintiff asked Dr. Duenas why his medication was reduced, he was told that the
medication was being reduced because “Plaintiff’s internal system was not breaking down the
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
medications” and that his kidney had signs of damage. Plaintiff asked to see evidence of kidney
damage. Neither Defendant provided Plaintiff with documentation.
Plaintiff alleges that several diagnostic tests were ordered, yet not administered. These
included an MRI and a CT scan. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Green and Duenas refused to
re-order the tests. Plaintiff was told that the dye used in the CT scan would damage his kidneys,
and the MRI would move the bullets still lodged in Plaintiff’s back.
Plaintiff also met with Defendant Wilson, and advised him of his “severe pain and his
8
inability to eat, sleep, or walk on most days.” Wilson told Plaintiff that “he is under orders from
9
the big wigs to cut medications not to up them.” Wilson specifically advised Plaintiff that “he
10
had not doubt that Plaintiff was in pain, but ‘I have to protect my job and I can only do that by
11
following orders.” Plaintiff specifically asked Defendant Wilson if “he personally felt Plaintiff’s
12
treatment was inadequate in light of his injuries and Defendant Wilson stated ‘yes, but it’s the
13
only treatment you’ll get. This is all above my pay grade.”
14
Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide medical care
15
to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). “In
16
order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there
17
must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v.
18
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether
19
medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must
20
examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must
21
determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id.
22
at 1132.
23
Liberally construed, Plaintiff a claim for relief against Defendants Green, Duenas and
24
Wilson. Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that he informed these Defendants of the specific
25
harm to Plaintiff, and was told that they could not restore Plaintiff’s original dosage. Plaintiff
26
has specifically alleged that these Defendants told Plaintiff that the decision to reduce his pain
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
medication was based upon non-medical reasons. Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that he
suffers from severe pain as a result of the decisions made by Defendants.
As to Defendant Dr. Igbinosa, the only specific conduct charged is that when told of
Plaintiff’s concerns, he advised Plaintiff to file an inmate grievance. Plaintiff appears to be
alleging that Dr. Igbinosa is liable because his subordinates refused to provide adequate pain
medication, despite Plaintiff’s protests.
Government officials may not be held liable for the
actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S.
662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious
liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the
Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state a claim for
relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link e Dr. Igbinosa with some affirmative act or
omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights.
Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants
14
Green, Wilson and Duenas for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. However, the
15
complaint does not state any other cognizable claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the
16
opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
17
order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the
18
nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith,
19
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
20
If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding
21
only on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in
22
writing, and the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of Dr. Igbinosa, and will
23
forward to Plaintiff three summonses and three USM-285 forms for completion and return.
24
Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of
25
process.
26
27
28
If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),
but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s
4
1
2
3
4
constitutional or other federal rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. With respect to defendants
like Warden Clark, “there is no pure respondeat superior liability under § 1983, [and] a
supervisor [may only be held] liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates ‘if the
supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to
5
prevent them.’” Id. at 988 (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)).
6
Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief
7
above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007)
8
(citations omitted).
9
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1.
2.
11
The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must
12
either:
13
a.
14
File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court
in this order, or
15
b.
Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended
16
complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Green, Wilson
17
and Duenas for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need; and
18
19
3.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this
action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
Dated:
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
26
27
28
November 13, 2013
6i0kij8d
5
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?