Estrella v. Garcia

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief may be GRANTED Under section 1983 13 ; ORDER that this DISMISSAL is Subject to the "THREE STRIKES" provision set forth in 28 USC 1915(g); ORDER for Clerk to Close this Case (Strike), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/19/14.CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIX ESTRELLA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

DR. GARCIA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

1:11-cv-01340-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE
GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983
(Doc. 13.)
ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL IS
SUBJECT TO THE ATHREE-STRIKES@
PROVISION SET FORTH IN 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE THIS
CASE

18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Felix Estrella (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23

commencing this case on August 12, 2011. (Doc. 1.)

24

On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.)

26

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

27

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

28

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

The court screened Plaintiff‟s Complaint and issued an order on November 19, 2013,

2

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) On

3

December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court

4

for screening. (Doc. 13.)

5

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

6

The in forma pauperis statutes provides that Athe court shall dismiss the case at any time

7

if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief

8

may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain Aa short and plain

9

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements

11

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,@ Ashcroft v.

12

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

13

550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts Aare not required to indulge unwarranted

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

III.

SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, in the

19

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), at the time the

20

events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as sole

21

defendant Dr. Garcia (dentist) (“Defendant”). Plaintiff‟s allegations follow, in their entirety:

22

23
24
25
26
27
28

On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff advised the Building Officer
that his front tooth was loose and that Plaintiff was in severe
pain. The officer, C/O Brecker called the dental clinic at the
Kern Valley Prison and told them of Plaintiff‟s condition and . . .
Plaintiff would be seen the same day. Plaintiff was not seen by
anyone until the next day, when C/O Brecker helped put in a
medical slip request. Plaintiff was seen by a License Vocational
Nurse (LVN). The LVN called the dental clinic. The LVN was
told that the Clinic refused to prescribe pain medication. Plaintiff
was not called to the dental clinic until January 2, 2011. On
January 12, 2011, Defendant Dr. Garcia finally gave Plaintiff
treatment, but pulled the wrong tooth and left the infected tooth
in.
2

1

(First Amended Complaint at 3 ¶IV). Plaintiff requests monetary damages as relief.

2

IV.

3

PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

4

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.

5
6
7

8

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

9

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

10

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the

11

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal

12

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

13

A.

14

A[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an

15

inmate must show >deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.=@ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

16

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)).

17

The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>a serious

18

medical need= by demonstrating that >failure to treat a prisoner=s condition could result in

19

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,=@ and (2) Athe

20

defendant=s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting

21

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX

22

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations

23

omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a

24

prisoner=s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing

25

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).

26

officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by

27

the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.@ Id. Where a prisoner is alleging a

28

delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the

Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen prison

3

1

prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at

2

1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.

3

1985)).

4

Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendant Dr.

5

Garcia or any other named prison official, because he fails to allege facts showing deliberate

6

indifference. While Plaintiff has shown that he had serious medical needs, he has not shown

7

that anyone acted against him or failed to act, knowing of and deliberately disregarding a

8

substantial risk to his health. At most, Plaintiff states a claim for negligence or medical

9

malpractice, which is a state tort claim.

Although the court may exercise supplemental

10

jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under

11

federal law. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1367. In this instance, the court fails to find any cognizable

12

federal claims in the First Amended Complaint, and therefore, Plaintiff=s claim fails.

13

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

14

The court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon

15

which relief may be granted under ' 1983 against any Defendant. In this action, the court

16

previously granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the

17

court. Plaintiff was advised in the court‟s prior screening order that “[t]he facts alleged indicate

18

that Dr. Garcia extracted the wrong tooth, but there are no facts alleged indicating such conduct

19

was intentional, or anything more than negligence. Before it can be said that a prisoner‟s civil

20

rights have been abridged with regard to medical care, however, „the indifference to his

21

medical needs must be substantial.

22

malpractice” will not support this cause of action.‟ Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d

23

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06).” (Order, Doc. 12 at 4:8-14.)

24

Nonetheless, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical claim in the First

25

Amended Complaint.

26

Mere “indifference,” “negligence,” or “medical

Plaintiff has now filed two complaints without alleging facts against any defendant

27

which state a claim under ' 1983. The court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not

28

///
4

1

capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not be

2

granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action is

5

DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

6

be granted under ' 1983;

7

2.

8
9

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and

3.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 19, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
5