Santiago v. Patel et al
Filing
18
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted Under Section 1983 and ORDER that This Dismissal is Subject to the "Three-Strikes" Provision Set Forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/8/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JOSE SANTIAGO,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
V. PATEL, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
1:13-cv-00032-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE
GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983
(Doc. 17.)
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
17
18
19
20
I.
BACKGROUND
21
Jose Santiago ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
22
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
23
commencing this action on January 9, 2013. (Doc. 1.)
24
On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28
25
U.S.C. § 636(c) in this action, and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 6.)
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
On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) On
2
September 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a
3
claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 16.) On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Second
4
Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 17.)
5
II.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
6
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
7
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a).
8
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
9
legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
10
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
11
' 1915A(b)(1),(2). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
12
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or
13
appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
14
A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing
15
that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
16
not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
17
conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
18
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955
19
(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge
20
unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
21
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual
22
matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal 556 U.S.
23
at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
24
To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to
25
state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572
26
F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
27
plausibility standard. Id.
28
///
2
1
III.
SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
Plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections
3
and Rehabilitation (CDCR), incarcerated at Wasco State Prison (WSP) in Wasco, California,
4
where the events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff
5
names as the sole defendant Dr. V. Patel (“Defendant”). Defendant was an employee of the
6
CDCR at WSP at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff's factual allegations follow.
7
Plaintiff has a serious, permanent medical condition due to a colostomy. On December
8
7, 2011, Plaintiff arrived as WSP with 80 colostomy bags from his last institution.
9
December 19, 2011, Plaintiff saw Dr. Ramos who fully granted a 602 inmate grievance that
10
Plaintiff had pending. As Plaintiff walked out, LVN Dickerson approached Dr. Ramos. The
11
next day, Plaintiff’s order for colostomy bags was changed and a new doctor, Dr. V. Patel,
12
arrived. Dr. Patel refused to approve Plaintiff’s order for colostomy bags. Plaintiff kept
13
explaining that he has had a colostomy for 12 years and has daily needs for colostomy bags, but
14
Dr. Patel refused to understand and told Plaintiff he was delusional. Dr. Patel was very
15
inconsiderate and disrespectful to Plaintiff, kept comparing Plaintiff to inmates at the
16
Correctional Training Facility, and told Plaintiff he thought his condition could be fixed.
17
Plaintiff told Dr. Patel that he has seen other doctors who verified that his condition is
18
permanent. Dr. Patel refused to listen, and Plaintiff had to beg for bags every other day. His
19
80 bags ran out. In April 2011, Plaintiff was in need of bags and was kicked out of the medical
20
department by LVN Dickenson and disciplined. From that time, Plaintiff used trash bags
21
instead of colostomy bags.
On
22
Plaintiff requests monetary damages to compensate him for three years of humiliation.
23
Plaintiff also requests a court order to provide him with 60 colostomy bags and karaya rings
24
each month.
25
Plaintiff informs the court in the Second Amended Complaint that a new doctor has
26
resolved Plaintiff’s need for colostomy bags, and since April 2013, Plaintiff now receives 30
27
colostomy bags per month.
28
///
3
1
IV.
2
PLAINTIFF=S MEDICAL CLAIM
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
3
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.
4
5
6
7
42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal
8
Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)
9
(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the
10
deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal
11
Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.
12
A[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
13
inmate must show >deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.=@ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
14
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)).
15
The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>a serious
16
medical need= by demonstrating that >failure to treat a prisoner=s condition could result in
17
further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,=@ and (2) Athe
18
defendant=s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting
19
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX
20
Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations
21
omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a
22
prisoner=s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing
23
McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).
24
officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by
25
the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.@ Id. Where a prisoner is alleging a
26
delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the
27
prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at
28
///
Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen prison
4
1
1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.
2
1985)).
3
ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
4
1060 (9th Cir. 2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official must not only >be aware of the
5
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,= but
6
that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
7
825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but
8
was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the
9
risk.=@ Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir.
AA showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a
10
2002)).
11
constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060. A[E]ven gross negligence
12
is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900
13
F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)).
14
Plaintiff’s need for colostomy bags does not rise to the level of Aa serious medical
15
need,” because he does not make a showing that the failure to provide him with colostomy bags
16
“could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
17
Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Plaintiff describes humiliation, but not pain or injury from being denied
18
colostomy bags for three years.1 Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that Dr.
19
Patel was deliberately indifferent to his needs. Plaintiff fails to show that when Dr. Patel acted
20
against him, or failed to act, he knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and
21
deliberately disregarded the risk. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a medical claim under the
22
Eighth Amendment.
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
28
1
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that A[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner
confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental and emotional injury suffered while in custody
without a prior showing of physical injury.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(e). The physical injury Aneed not be significant
but must be more than de minimis.@ Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002). The physical injury
requirement applies only to claims for mental or emotional injuries and does not bar claims for compensatory,
nominal, or punitive damages. Id. at 630.
5
1
V.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
2
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable
3
claims upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. In this action, the Court previously
4
granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court.
5
Plaintiff has now filed two amended complaints without alleging facts against any of the
6
defendants which state a claim under ' 1983. The Court finds that the deficiencies outlined
7
above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further leave to amend
8
should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
9
(9th Cir. 2000).
10
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action is
12
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
13
granted under ' 1983;
14
2.
15
16
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.
17
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 8, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?