Pickering v. Clark et al
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Ation for Failure to State a Claim re 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/20/13. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WAYNE PICKERING,
Case No. 1:11-cv-00937-LJO-DLB PC
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
KEN CLARK, et al.,
13
ECF No. 17
Defendants.
14
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
15
16
17
I.
Background
Plaintiff Wayne L. Pickering (“Plaintiff’) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
18
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff initiated
20
this action by filing his complaint. On January 11, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint for
21
failure to state a claim with leave to amend. On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed his first amended
22
complaint. On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint.
23
On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. ECF No. 17. The second
24
amended complaint is before the Court for screening.
25
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
26
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
27
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
28
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
1
1
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
2
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
3
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a
4
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
5
6
is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
7
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
8
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
9
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
10
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual
11
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
12
II.
13
Summary of Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff was incarcerated at California Substance Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran,
14
California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants:
15
warden Ken Clark; A. Enenmoh, chief medical officer; P. Brightwell, correctional counselor; Tim
16
Byers, physician assistant; John Doe 1, medical employee; Jane Doe 2, medical employee; Denise
17
Greene, doctor; E. Jean Pierre, doctor; Brian Lee, official; Kevin Lee, doctor; Lewis, doctor; Liu,
18
doctor; J. Metts, doctor; G. Miller, official; R. Mounce, official; Aron Rotman, doctor; S. Salmi,
19
official; G. Wright, official; and L. Zinani, official.
20
Plaintiff alleges the following. The cartilage in Plaintiff’s left knee was disintegrated, with
21
shards floating in Plaintiff’s left knee, causing excruciating pain. Plaintiff suffered substantial
22
impairment to walking, sitting, sleeping, and other activities. CDCR doctors had provided
23
accommodations regarding his left knee, including knee braces, pain medication, lower-bunk and
24
lower-tier housing restrictions. Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 10-11.
25
On April 19, 2006, Defendant Greene evaluated Plaintiff’s left knee, documenting Plaintiff’s
26
pain. Defendant Greene wrote a request for Plaintiff to receive an MRI. However, the request was
27
labeled as routine. SAC ¶ 14.
28
On July 7, 2006, Defendant Salmi personally evaluated Plaintiff and documented that
2
1
Plaintiff was suffering severe and debilitating pain in his left knee. Defendant Salmi noted that
2
Plaintiff had not yet received an MRI. Defendant Salmi ordered an X-ray, and submitted a request
3
for Plaintiff to be seen by an orthopedic specialist. The request for orthopedic specialist was listed
4
as routine. SAC ¶ 15. An x-ray was taken on July 13, 2006. SAC ¶ 16.
5
On July 21, 2006, Defendant Salmi again evaluated Plaintiff and documented his condition.
6
SAC ¶ 17. On August 14, 2006, an MRI was finally conducted, revealing substantial damage in
7
Plaintiff’s left knee. SAC ¶ 18. On October 4, 2006, Defendant Salmi evaluated Plaintiff, noted
8
Plaintiff’s condition, and that Plaintiff had yet to see an orthopedic specialist. SAC ¶ 19. On
9
October 18, 2006, an orthopedic specialist examined Plaintiff and determined that Plaintiff needed
10
arthroscopic surgery on his left knee. SAC ¶ 20. On November 9, 2006, Defendant Salmi evaluated
11
Plaintiff and submitted a request to the chief medical officer for Plaintiff to receive the arthroscopic
12
surgery. The request was not marked urgent. SAC ¶ 21.
13
On May 5, 2007, Plaintiff finally received the arthroscopic surgery. The surgery revealed
14
internal derangement throughout Plaintiff’s left knee. On March 21, 2007 and June 6, 2007 the
15
orthoscopic surgeon evaluated Plaintiff’s knee and informed him that he may ultimately need total
16
knee replacement. SAC ¶¶ 25, 26. On June 21, 2007, Defendant Salmi evaluated Plaintiff and
17
documented that Plaintiff still suffered from severe and debilitating pain. SAC ¶ 27.
18
On December 16, 2007, Defendant Lee evaluated Plaintiff, and referred a request to the chief
19
medical officer for further evaluation by the orthoscopic surgeon. The request was listed as routine.
20
SAC ¶ 29. On January 31, 2008, Defendant Lee injected a substance into Plaintiff’s left knee to help
21
relieve Plaintiff’s pain. SAC ¶ 31. On March 12, 2008, the orthoscopic surgeon again evaluated
22
Plaintiff and documented his left knee pain. SAC ¶ 32.
23
On May 22, 2008, Plaintiff was immediately transported to an outside hospital by ambulance
24
because of the severe and debilitating pain and swelling. The surgeon prescribed that Plaintiff be
25
scheduled for a consultation for total knee replacement. SAC ¶ 33.
26
On June 6, 2008, Defendant Rotman submitted an urgent request for Plaintiff to be evaluated
27
by the orthopedic surgeon. SAC ¶ 35. On June 10, 2008, Defendant Enenmoh altered the request to
28
routine, without personally evaluating Plaintiff. SAC ¶ 36. On July 9, 2008, Defendant Rotman
3
1
evaluated Plaintiff and documented that Plaintiff’s status had become worse, and his need for total
2
knee replacement was urgent/high priority. SAC ¶ 37. On August 2, 2008, Defendant Rotman
3
evaluated Plaintiff and documented his status as stable, and changed the priority from urgent to be
4
seen within thirty days. SAC ¶ 38. On August 5, 2008, Defendant Enenmoh altered the request to
5
reflect that Plaintiff was to be taken for consultation with an orthopedic surgeon rather than to
6
receive a total knee replacement surgery. SAC ¶ 39.
7
On August 27, 2008, Defendant Enenmoh found that Plaintiff’s condition constituted a
8
disability and warranted reasonable and necessary accommodations. SAC ¶ 40. On September 9,
9
2008, October 7, 2008, and December 30, 2008, Defendant Rotman evaluated Plaintiff and
10
documented that he still suffered from severe and debilitating pain because of the left knee and was
11
still awaiting a total knee replacement surgery. SAC ¶¶ 42, 44, 46. On January 21, 2009, Defendant
12
Rotman ordered that Plaintiff be given a wheelchair. SAC ¶ 47.
13
On January 27, 2009, Defendant Byers submitted a written request for Plaintiff to be seen by
14
an orthopedic surgeon. SAC ¶ 48. Defendant Lewis evaluated Plaintiff on February 5, 2009. SAC
15
¶ 49. On February 19, 2009, Defendant Rotman prescribed medical services within thirty days.
16
SAC ¶ 50. CDCR nursing staff on March 17, 2009 evaluated Plaintiff. SAC ¶ 51. On April 27,
17
2009, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining of his lack of total knee replacement. SAC ¶ 52.
18
Defendant Miller rejected the appeal, under the supervision, influence, and control of Defendant
19
Enenmoh. SAC ¶¶ 53, 54.
20
On May 7 and May 8 of 2009, Defendant Rotman evaluated Plaintiff. Defendant Rotman
21
prescribed that Plaintiff be seen by the orthopedic surgeon within thirty days. SAC ¶¶ 55, 56. On
22
May 19, 2009, Defendant Byers submitted a request to Defendant Enenmoh for Plaintiff to receive
23
knee replacement surgery. SAC ¶ 57.
24
On May 30, 2009, Plaintiff was rushed by CDCR officers to the medical clinic on a gurney
25
due to excruciating pain for emergency treatment. SAC ¶ 58. A nurse evaluated Plaintiff and called
26
the prison’s infirmary to send an ambulance to pick Plaintiff up and take him to the emergency
27
room. Defendant Doe 1 denied the request, and an officer transported Plaintiff to the emergency
28
room in a golf cart. SAC ¶ 61. Plaintiff’s ankles are shackled, hands cuffed at sides and secured at
4
1
2
the waist, and seated upright without a seatbelt. SAC ¶ 62.
In front of the infirmary, Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 injected Plaintiff with two different
3
painkillers into his arms, and told the officer to drive Plaintiff back to his housing. SAC ¶ 63.
4
Plaintiff lost consciousness and fell out of the golf cart, while it was traveling 30 to 35 miles per
5
hour. SAC ¶ 64. Defendant Metts evaluated Plaintiff’s injuries, but did not order an x-ray. SAC ¶
6
64. Defendant Metts believed that Plaintiff likely lost consciousness due to being seated in an
7
upright position with no physical restraints, and double-dosed with painkillers. SAC ¶ 64. Plaintiff
8
suffered injuries to his left leg and knee, and his head, neck, shoulder, arm, and back. SAC ¶ 66.
9
On June 2, 2009, Defendant Rotman evaluated Plaintiff’s injuries and ordered x-rays. SAC ¶
10
67. On June 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance concerning this incident. SAC ¶ 68.
11
Defendant Miller rejected Plaintiff’s inmate appeals, under the supervision of Defendant Enenmoh.
12
SAC ¶¶ 69, 70. On June 9, 2009, Plaintiff was x-rayed. SAC ¶ 71. On June 23, 2009, Defendant
13
Liu evaluated Plaintiff regarding the fall, but reduced Plaintiff’s pain medication. SAC ¶ 72.
14
On June 29, 2009, Defendant Rotman noted that Plaintiff was still awaiting his total knee
15
replacement surgery. The delay in the surgery was due to the written request being erroneously
16
listed for Plaintiff’s right knee rather than the left. SAC ¶ 73. On July 6, 2009, Plaintiff was taken
17
for another consultation. SAC ¶ 74. On July 14, 2009, Defendant Enenmoh responded to Plaintiff’s
18
April 27 grievance, but did not acknowledge the delay in receiving the knee surgery. SAC ¶ 75. On
19
July 29, 2009, Plaintiff received the knee surgery. SAC ¶ 76.
20
On August 7, 2009, Defendant Brightwell notified Plaintiff that he was being brought before
21
a classification committee for transfer to another prison. SAC ¶ 77. Plaintiff contends a conspiracy
22
by Defendants Clark, Enenmoh, and Brightwell to transfer Plaintiff because he had filed inmate
23
grievances. SAC ¶ 79.
24
On August 10, 2009, Defendant Jean Pierre evaluated Plaintiff but failed to renew Plaintiff’s
25
pain medication. SAC ¶ 80. On August 13, 2009, Defendants Brightwell, Mounce, and Wright, the
26
classification committee, informed Plaintiff that he was being put up for transfer to another prison.
27
SAC ¶ 82. On August 20, 2009, Defendant Lee approved Plaintiff’s transfer. SAC ¶ 86. Plaintiff
28
submitted an inmate appeal on August 25, 2009, requesting not to be transferred because he was in
5
1
the midst of recovering from total knee replacement surgery. SAC ¶ 92. Defendant Zinani did not
2
act on the appeal for three weeks. SAC ¶ 93. On September 4, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred.
3
Plaintiff contends a violation of the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff
4
requests as relief an injunction enjoining transportation of CDCR inmates in vehicles not equipped
5
with seat belts, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs of suit.
6
III.
7
8
9
Analysis
A.
First Amendment
1.
Inmate Appeals
Plaintiff complains that Defendants Miller, Zinani, and Enenmoh delayed and obstructed
10
Plaintiff’s inmate grievance. Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Inmates have a First Amendment right to
11
file inmate grievances. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). However, inmates
12
do not have a substantive constitutional right as to a specific inmate procedure regarding the
13
processing of their inmate grievances. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing
14
Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Defendants’ actions in rejecting or delaying
15
responses to Plaintiff’s inmate appeals, without more, does not state a § 1983 claim.
16
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Enenmoh and Clark for failure to train
17
Defendants Miller and Zinani. The term “supervisory liability,” loosely and commonly used by both
18
courts and litigants alike, is a misnomer. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Government officials may not be
19
held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat
20
superior.” Id. Rather, each government official, regardless of his or her title, is only liable for his or
21
her own misconduct. Id. When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link
22
between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See
23
Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
24
1978). To state a claim for relief under § 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some
25
facts indicating that the defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of
26
constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. Taylor v. List, 880
27
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
28
Plaintiff fails to allege any facts against Defendants Clark and Enenmoh which would
6
1
indicate that they either personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or
2
knew of such violations and failed to act to prevent them.
3
4
2.
Involuntary Prison Transfer
Plaintiff contends that Defendants, Brightwell, Mounce, Write, Lee, Zinani, Miller,
5
Enenmoh, and Clark violated Plaintiff’s rights by transferring Plaintiff to another prison. For a
6
viable claim of First Amendment retaliation, the following elements must be met: “(1) An assertion
7
that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s
8
protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment
9
rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Brodheim, 584
10
11
F.3d at 1269 (quoting Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff
12
has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendants took adverse action against Plaintiff.
13
Plaintiff contends that involuntary transfer is sufficient to state an adverse action. However, Plaintiff
14
has not alleged any other facts which indicate that an involuntary transfer, without more, is sufficient
15
to state an adverse action. Plaintiff also fails to allege facts which demonstrate that the classification
16
committee Defendants, Brightwell, Mounce, and Wright, or Defendant Lee, who approved the
17
transfer, were acting because Plaintiff had filed inmate grievances. Plaintiff fails to allege facts
18
which indicate any of these Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had filed inmate grievances.
19
Plaintiff also alleges that the transfer was part of a conspiracy between Defendants Clark,
20
Enenmoh, Brightwell, and other Defendants. However, Plaintiff fails to allege facts which
21
demonstrate a conspiracy by any Defendants. Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002) (to
22
prove conspiracy, a plaintiff must show an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate
23
constitutional rights).
Eighth Amendment – Medical Care
24
B.
25
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. “The Constitution does not
26
mandate comfortable prisons.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quotation and citation
27
omitted). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth
28
Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized
7
1
measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate indifference in
2
doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296
3
F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The deliberate indifference standard involves an
4
objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms,
5
“sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298
6
(1991)). Second, the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate
7
health or safety . . . .” Id. at 837.
8
“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. “Under this
9
standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from which the inference could be
10
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’”
11
Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the
12
risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the
13
risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).
14
15
Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against all Defendants.
1.
Defendants Greene and Salmi
16
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Greene and Salmi. Plaintiff fails to allege
17
facts which indicate that Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to
18
Plaintiff’s health. Defendants in examining Plaintiff designated their requests for service as routine,
19
which does not demonstrate deliberate indifference. Plaintiff at most raises a dispute of treatment
20
between the prisoner and a treating doctor, which fails to state a claim. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058.
21
Additionally, isolated incidents of neglect do not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical
22
needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).
23
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against Defendant Salmi for deliberate indifference
24
regarding the lack of knee replacement surgery. Plaintiff contends that the orthopedic surgeon had
25
indicated a need for total replacement surgery, which Defendant Salmi knew, but Defendant Salmi
26
failed to provide medical care. However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts which indicate that
27
Defendant Salmi acted with deliberate indifference. It appears that based on the allegations,
28
Defendant Salmi did not arrange for Plaintiff to receive total knee replacement surgery. However,
8
1
Plaintiff has not alleged facts which indicate that Defendants Salmi could have made such
2
arrangements. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1988) (causation of constitutional
3
violation requires court to “take a very individualized approach which accounts for the duties,
4
discretion, and means of each defendant”). Plaintiff also appears to raise at most a difference of
5
opinion between health professionals with regards to the course of treatment, which does not
6
generally amount to deliberate indifference. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60. To state a claim for
7
deliberate indifference for a difference of opinion between health professionals, Plaintiff must allege
8
facts which indicate that “the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable
9
under the circumstances” and “that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk
10
11
12
to [the prisoner’s] health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
2.
Defendant Lee
Defendant Lee in examining Plaintiff designated the requests for service as routine, which
13
fails to state a claim. Defendant Lee injected a substance into Plaintiff’s left knee to relieve the pain.
14
Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged facts which indicate that Defendant Lee disregarded an excessive risk
15
of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health.
16
17
3.
Defendant Rotman
Defendant Rotman examined Plaintiff on a regular basis but allegedly failed to provide
18
Plaintiff with a knee replacement surgery in a timelier manner. Plaintiff has not alleged facts which
19
indicate that Defendants Rotman could have made such arrangements. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633-34.
20
Plaintiff also appears to raise at most a difference of opinion between health professionals with
21
regards to the course of treatment, which does not generally amount to deliberate indifference.
22
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant Rotman examined
23
Plaintiff frequently and referred Plaintiff on several occasions to see an orthopedic surgeon for
24
consultation. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations amount at most to a difference of opinion between
25
medical professionals, and Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for deliberate
26
indifference. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60.
27
28
4.
Defendant Enenmoh
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Enenmoh. Based on the allegations,
9
1
Defendant Enenmoh changed some urgent requests for medical service to routine. Plaintiff’s other
2
allegations undermine his claim that Defendant Enenmoh acted with deliberate indifference.
3
Plaintiff alleges that the appointment with the orthopedic surgeon on May 28, 2008 was for
4
consultation for knee replacement surgery. Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged facts which demonstrate
5
that Defendant Enenmoh acted with deliberate indifference by changing the priority level and
6
referring Plaintiff for consultation on surgery rather than actual surgery. Defendant Enenmoh also
7
noted that Plaintiff’s condition merited his designation as an inmate with a disability. Plaintiff has
8
not alleged sufficient facts to indicate that Defendant Enenmoh disregarded an excessive risk of
9
serious harm to Plaintiff’s health.
10
5.
Defendant Byers
11
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Byers acted with deliberate
12
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Based on the allegations, Defendant Byers referred
13
Plaintiff to be seen by an orthopedic surgeon and submitted a request for Plaintiff to receive knee
14
replacement surgery in May 2009. Plaintiff has not alleged facts which indicate that Defendant
15
Byers knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health.
16
17
6.
Defendant Lewis
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Lewis acted with deliberate
18
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Defendant Lewis evaluated Plaintiff once.
19
Plaintiff alleges at most a difference of opinion between health professionals regarding a course of
20
treatment, and fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Lewis acted with conscious
21
disregard to his health.
22
23
7.
Defendant Does 1 and 2
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendants Does 1 and 2 acted with
24
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that
25
Defendants Does 1 and 2 injected Plaintiff with painkillers and then sent him back to his cell.
26
Plaintiff’s allegations amount, at most, to negligence, which fails to state an Eighth Amendment
27
claim. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 (holding that even gross negligence is insufficient to establish
28
deliberate indifference).
10
1
8.
2
Defendant Clark
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Clark acted with deliberate
3
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Clark allowed
4
transportation of inmates at SATF in vehicles without seat belts installed to prevent inmates from
5
falling out. Plaintiff has not alleged facts which indicate that Defendant Clark knew of and
6
disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff’s health. There are no allegations which
7
indicate that Defendant Clark was aware of any risks to Plaintiff with regards to transportation.
8
9.
Defendant Metts
9
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Metts acted with deliberate
10
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Metts failed to
11
safely transport Plaintiff back to his cell, resulting in Plaintiff falling out and injuring himself when
12
he lost consciousness. Plaintiff’s allegations amount at most to negligence, which fails to state an
13
Eighth Amendment claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
14
10.
15
Defendant Liu
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Liu acted with deliberate
16
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Liu reduced
17
Plaintiff’s pain medication. Plaintiff alleges at most a difference of opinion between health
18
professionals regarding a course of treatment, and fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant
19
Liu acted with conscious disregard to his health.
20
11.
Defendant Jean Pierre
21
Plaintiff fails to allege facts which indicate that Defendant Jean Pierre acted with deliberate
22
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jean Pierre failed
23
to renew Plaintiff’s pain medication. Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state an Eighth
24
Amendment claim. Isolated occurrences of neglect do not constitute deliberate indifference to
25
serious medical needs. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
26
IV.
27
28
Conclusion and Recommendation
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants. The undersigned does not find that
Plaintiff can amend his pleadings to cure the deficiencies identified. Leave to amend will thus not be
11
1
granted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
2
3
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
4
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
5
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
6
after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections
7
with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
8
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
9
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
10
1991).
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
April 20, 2013
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
DEAC_Signature-END:
15
3b142a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
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?