Lopez v. Yates et al
Filing
9
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 02/20/2014. Amended Complaint due by 3/27/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
JOHNNY LOPEZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-2005-MJS
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF‟S
COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
ECF No. 1
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
19
On October 18, 2013, Johnny Lopez (“Plaintiff”), an individual proceeding pro se and
20
21
22
in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiff‟s Complaint is now before the Court for screening. No other parties have
23
24
25
appeared in the action.
I.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against
26
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
27
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that
28
are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
1
1
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
2
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
3
4
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5
6
7
8
28 U.S.C. §
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
9
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient
10
factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim that is plausible on its face.‟” Iqbal, 556
11
12
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the
mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are
13
accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
14
II.
15
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The events at issue in
16
his Complaint occurred in Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”).
17
Defendants violated Plaintiff‟s rights under the Eighth Amendment by providing him with
18
inadequate medical care. Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants: 1) James
19
A. Yates, warden, and 2) Inwumi Ola, medical doctor.
20
More specifically, Plaintiff‟s alleges as follows:
21
Plaintiff is in his late sixties and has a number of medical problems. On March 14,
22
2012, Plaintiff asked Defendant Ola for a walker with a seat because he became dizzy after
23
walking several steps.
24
prescribed orthopedic shoes for Plaintiff.
25
26
Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Ola refused to fulfill Plaintiff‟s request and instead
Plaintiff asked for a walker again on March 27, 2012, but the request was again
denied.
27
28
2
1
Plaintiff fell on April 13, 2012, injuring his head, nose and right eye. Plaintiff was taken
to a hospital by helicopter. Plaintiff‟s medical conditions worsened. Plaintiff was provided
2
with a medical walker with a seat in the fall of 2012.
3
Defendant Yates should have reviewed prison policies to ensure that inmates
4
5
received adequate medical care. Defendant Ola acted with deliberate indifference by not
providing Plaintiff with a walker when Plaintiff asked for one.
6
7
8
Plaintiff asks for declaratory and injunctive relief, $25,000 in compensatory damages
from each Defendant, and $30,000 in punitive damages from each Defendant.
III.
9
ANALYSIS
A.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims
10
42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the „deprivation of any rights,
11
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws‟ of the United States.” Wilder
12
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass‟n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). § 1983 is not
13
itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal
14
rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
15
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a
16
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
17
alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
18
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.
19
1987).
20
B.
21
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Yates should be held liable for the inadequate medical
22
care he received. As warden of the prison, Defendant Yates should have reviewed prison
23
policies and ensured that inmates received proper medical treatment.
Supervisory Liability
24
Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named Defendants to the participation in
25
the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d
26
1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir.
27
2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed on
28
supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77;
3
1
2
Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934, and as an
administrator, Defendant Yates may only be held liable if he “participated in or directed the
violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
3
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011),
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009);
Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir.
2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997). Some culpable action or
inaction must be attributable to Defendant and while the creation or enforcement of, or
acquiescence in, an unconstitutional policy, as alleged here, may support a claim, the policy
must have been the moving force behind the violation. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205; Jeffers v.
Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d
1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff attributes no action or inaction to Defendant Yates other than an alleged
13
failure to have reviewed and improved prison procedures to ensure that inmates received
14
proper medical care. Plaintiff does not identify any specific prison policy that caused or led to
15
the Eighth Amendment violation alleged here. Thus, it appears that in truth Plaintiff has
16
named Yates as a Defendant simply because of his overall supervisorial responsibilities as
17
warden. For the reasons stated above, that is not a valid basis for a cognizable claim.
18
C.
19
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ola subjected him to inadequate medical care in
20
violation of the Eighth Amendment by not providing him with a walker when Plaintiff
21
requested one.
Eighth Amendment – Inadequate Medical Care
22
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
23
inmate must show „deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.‟” Jett v. Penner, 439
24
F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The
25
two part test for deliberate indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “„a serious medical need‟
26
by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner‟s condition could result in further significant
27
injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,‟” and (2) “the defendant‟s response to
28
the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith,
4
1
974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,
104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)).
2
In addition to a serious medical condition, Plaintiff must also establish deliberate
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
indifference. To show deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must show “a purposeful act or failure
to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the
indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the
prison official must not only „be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,‟ but that person „must also draw the inference.‟”
Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). “„If a prison official
should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth
Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.‟” Id. (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188).
Plaintiff has failed to make allegations sufficient to fulfill either element required for a
13
cognizable Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to
14
amend this claim.
15
Plaintiff fails to explain why his “multiple medical problems” rise to the level of a
16
serious medical condition. It is conceivable, but not clear, that his dizziness was such as to
17
render him incapable of safely walking more than a few steps. But as pled, he alleges only
18
that he had some dizziness after walking several steps. He does not allege, for example,
19
that he had a history of falling from dizziness or anything else to support a conclusion that his
20
dizziness was indeed a serious condition. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should include
21
additional information about his ailments and why they would lead to further significant injury
22
or the infliction of additional pain if not properly treated.
23
Plaintiff also fails to explain how Defendant Ola was deliberately indifferent to his
24
medical condition. Plaintiff‟s belief that he should have been provided with a walker instead
25
of orthodontic shoes reflects merely a disagreement with Defendant‟s choice of treatment.
26
“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner-or between medical
27
professionals-concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate
28
indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild,
5
1
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122–23 (9th Cir.
2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must
2
show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the
3
circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
excessive risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff should explain why a
medical walker was necessary and why Defendant Ola‟s decision to provide other treatment
was medically unacceptable and reflected deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant
Ola.
D.
Declaratory Relief
In addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, but because his claims for
damages necessarily entail a determination whether his rights were violated, his separate
request for declaratory relief is subsumed by those claims. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
13
559, 565-66 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this action properly
14
proceeds as one for damages only.
15
E.
16
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief. He requests an injunction ordering Defendants to
17
Injunctive Relief
provide him with proper health required as required by law.
18
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
19
Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
20
injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
21
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
22
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.
23
674, 689–90 (2008)).
24
25
Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits since at this stage
of the proceedings he has failed to state a cognizable claim.
26
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison
27
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that any preliminary injunction “be narrowly drawn,
28
6
1
extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
2
Plaintiff fails to suggest a real and immediate threat of injury. See City of Los Angeles
3
4
5
6
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of
injury, and “past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or
controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present,
adverse effects.”). Plaintiff has failed to satisfy this element.
7
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff does not address the third or fourth elements, i.e., the balancing of equities
and public interest concerns. First, absent a showing sufficient to find harm to Plaintiff, there
is nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff's favor. Second, while the public has an
interest in providing the best practical prisoner care, the record before the Court does not
justify the Court substituting its judgment in these matters for that of the prison medical staff.
12
The various criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.
13
The Court will allow leave to amend.
14
sufficient facts satisfying the above elements.
15
IV.
If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must set forth
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
16
Plaintiff‟s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under §
17
1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies in
18
his claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d
19
1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new,
20
unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
21
2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
22
Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state
23
what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff=s constitutional rights,
24
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 676-677.
25
[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
26
555 (citations omitted).
Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be
27
Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, Forsyth v. Humana,
28
Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987),
7
1
and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,”
Local Rule 220.
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1.
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;
2.
Plaintiff‟s Complaint, filed October 18, 2013, is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983;
3.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint; and
4.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this
action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
16
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
February 20, 2014
DEAC _Signature- END:
ci4d6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?