Fuentes v. Yates, et al.

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/6/2013, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JERRY FUENTES,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00457-AWI-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER
SECTION 1983

10
v.
11
JAMES YATES, et al.,
12

(Doc. 19)
Defendants.

13

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
/

14
15
16

Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint
I.

Procedural History

17

Plaintiff Jerry Fuentes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Yates and Igbinosa removed this action from Fresno

19

County Superior Court on March 17, 2011. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). On March 8, 2012, the Court

20

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

21

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

22

II.

Screening Requirement and Standard

23

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

24

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

26

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief

27

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

28

///
1

1

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

2

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

3

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

4

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic

5

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not required to

6

indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

7

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

8

conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

9

While prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their

10

pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is

11

now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to survive

12

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to

13

allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,

14

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969

15

(9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere

16

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

17

(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

18

III.

Discussion

19

A.

20

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that while he was housed at Pleasant Valley State

Allegations

21

Prison (PVSP) between 2004 and 2009, he contracted Valley Fever and became extremely ill.

22

Plaintiff alleges that he begged for medical care and a transfer to a different prison, and although he

23

was eventually transferred, he still is still suffering from having been neglected.

24

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants James Yates, Warden, and Felix Igbinosa, Chief Medical

25

Officer, “failed, negligently, with deliberate indifference and ‘Callous disregard to render proper

26

medical and custodial Aid by refusing to treat plaintiff’s Valley Fever’ and by refusing to [transfer]

27

him before the conditions got worse.” (Doc. 19, Amend. Comp., p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that his

28

///
2

1

muscles, joints, and organs are no longer functioning normally, and if Defendants had “heard [his]

2

cries for help,” his health would not have been permanently affected. (Id., p. 4.)

3

B.

4

Plaintiff alleges a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment of the United States

5

Constitution, which protects prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from

6

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006)

7

(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

8

U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement

9

may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary

10

infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks

11

omitted).

Eighth Amendment Claim

12

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food,

13

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.

14

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in

15

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted).

16

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, inmates must show deliberate indifference to a substantial

17

risk of harm to their health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas, 611 at 1151-52; Foster

18

v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at

19

731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

20

“To establish . . . [a] violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard - that the

21

deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment - and a subjective

22

standard - deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012). For

23

claims arising out of medical care in prison, Plaintiff must first show the existence of an objectively

24

serious medical need, and then show deliberate indifference to that need. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985;

25

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

26

Cir. 2006).

27

The Court assumes without deciding that Valley Fever constitutes an objectively serious

28

medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); accord
3

1

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. However, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim

2

that Defendants Yates and Igbinosa knowingly disregarded an excessive risk of harm to Plaintiff’s

3

health. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

4

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant to the participation in the

5

violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011,

6

1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v.

7

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants, as Warden and Chief Medical Officer,

8

held administrative positions at PVSP and liability may not be imposed on them under a theory of

9

respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235.

10

While liability may lie against prison administrators for violation of the Eighth Amendment,

11

Snow, 681 F.3d at 989; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1098, they may only be held liable if they “participated in

12

or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List,

13

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011),

14

cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009);

15

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007);

16

Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997). In short, some culpable action or inaction

17

must be attributable to them. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 914-15 (9th

18

Cir. 2001); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Hansen v.

19

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989).

20

The Court is mindful of the liberal pleading standard, but Plaintiff must nonetheless allege

21

sufficient facts to support his claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Negligence is

22

insufficient to support a claim under section 1983, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285

23

(1977); Snow, 681 F.3d at 987, and Plaintiff may not rely on a conclusory allegation of deliberate

24

indifference to support his claim, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Assuming Plaintiff had a serious medical

25

need, there is no factual support for his claim that Defendants Yates and Igbinosa acted with

26

deliberate indifference toward that medical need. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

27

///

28

///
4

1

IV.

Conclusion and Recommendation

2

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the

3

Eighth Amendment. The Court does not recommend further leave to amend, because Plaintiff was

4

previously provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claim and the opportunity to amend but he

5

was unable to cure the deficiencies. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-

6

49 (9th Cir. 1987).

7
8

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

9

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

11

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

12

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

13

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

14

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

15

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
ie14hj

March 6, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5