Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending That This Case Be Dismissed, With Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/14/16: Objections Due Within Thirty Days. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD YOUNG

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE
GRANTED

vs.
C. SISODIA AND J. KIM,

15

Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

16
17
18

I.

Ronald Young (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on April 27, 2015. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s
complaint on June 24, 2016, finding that it failed to state any claims against any of the
Defendants upon which relief may be granted under section 1983, and giving Plaintiff leave to
amend. (ECF No. 13) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 21, 2016,
which is before this Court for screening.
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SCREENING
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

1

1

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

2

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

3

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

5

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

6

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

7

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

8

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

9

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

10

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

11

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

13

plaintiff‟s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

14

However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.”

15

Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights

16

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v.

17

Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of

18

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

19
20
21

III.

ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a rash and was denied daily showers needed to care

for that rash due to the prison’s shower policy.

22

In November 2012, Plaintiff started noticing a small rash on his hands. He requested a

23

doctor to help treat the rash. Defendant doctors Sisodia and Kim both saw Plaintiff in January

24

2013 and gave him tubes of Fluocinonide ointment to treat the rash. The rash spread.

25

Inmates at the prison housing unit where Plaintiff is located are not allowed to utilize

26

showers unless it is their day room time or if they are returning from work assignments. Day

27

room time is on a rotation of every other day. Sometimes day room time is cancelled if there is

28

an emergency, shortage of staff, power outage, or other security issues. During the period in
2

1

question, there were several lockdowns and institutional emergencies that resulted in

2

cancellation of shower privileges. As a result, it was impossible for Plaintiff to effectively treat

3

his rash by correctly cleaning himself in a shower.

4

Plaintiff requested an appointment with an off-site dermatologist. On April 16, 2014,

5

Plaintiff saw TeLe Med2U Dermotologist, P. Haines, who recommended that Plaintiff be

6

allowed to take daily showers. Plaintiff forwarded this information to prison staff to request

7

daily showers. He was told that the housing unit medical staff had to issue the order for daily

8

showers. But that medical staff, defendants Sisodia and Kim, failed to give permission for

9

daily showers. They did however continue to order Fluocinonide ointment.
Plaintiff’s rash is painful and embarrassing because it causes him to need to scratch

10
11

private areas in front of other inmates.

12

On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR-602 medical appeal form for the failure to

13

authorize daily showers. Plaintiff was interviewed at the 3A medical department by Defendant

14

Sisodia regarding the grievance. Defendant Sisodia became very angry and hostile towards

15

Plaintiff for filing the appeal and further indicated that Plaintiff “had nothing come from

16

medical staff including the dermatologist Haines recommended daily showers no matter how

17

severe the rash had gotten.”

18

On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Clark at ACH-General Hospital who

19

generated an additional CDCR-7410 medical chrono for Plaintiff to be issued waist restraints,

20

cotton bedding, limited job assignment restrictions due to Plaintiff’s limited use of his left arm

21

and inability to climb stairs. When Plaintiff asked Dr. Clark about issuing a daily shower

22

chrono, he said that they had to be issued by 3A facility doctors, who were Defendants Sisodia

23

and Kim.

24
25

Defendant Kim examined Plaintiff’s feet, legs and rectal areas to see where the rash had
spread.

26

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff resubmitted a medical appeal requesting bacterial soap

27

with a daily shower. Doctor Sistodia saw Plaintiff again and gave Plaintiff ibupropren for the

28
3

1

pain, but Defendant Sisodia refused the daily shower request again. Defendant Kim also

2

reexamined Plaintiff on several different occasions, but refused to authorize daily showers.

3

IV.

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS

4

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical

5

care and is violated when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate's

6

serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part

7

on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v.

8

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

9

2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat

10

[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton

11

infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant's response to the need was deliberately

12

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)).

13

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's

14

pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at

15

1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective

16

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985

17

(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

18

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for deliberate indifference to his

19

serious medical needs because Plaintiff’s allegations do not show that the reason for the failure

20

to provide medical care was to cause harm to the Plaintiff. On the contrary, according to

21

Plaintiff’s own allegations, the reason for failing to provide showers was because of concerns

22

about the function and security of the prison. There is a prison policy for showers, which

23

provides for showers every other day or when returning from work assignments, as described

24

by Plaintiff. Those privileges were cancelled at times because of an emergency or shortage of

25

staff, power outage or any other security issues. Defendant doctors continued to prescribe care

26

to Plaintiff, including ointment and ibpropren, although not with daily showers as

27

recommended. There is no evidence or allegations that they did so with purpose to harm

28
4

1

plaintiff. Rather, the allegations indicate that daily showers were not available due to prison

2

policies and security issues.

3

Although Plaintiff alleges real suffering from the prison policy regarding availability of

4

showers, Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional claim under the law, which requires that the

5

officers deprived medical care base on deliberate indifference or purpose to harm, rather than

6

for a prison security reason. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s ailments, which sound

7

painful and embarrassing, but does not believe that he has asserted a violation of the

8

Constitution.

9

V.

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

10

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file prison grievances and to pursue civil

11

rights litigation in the courts. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2004). To state a

12

viable First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) [a]n

13

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that

14

prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First

15

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional

16

goal.” Id. at 567-68.

17

Plaintiff alleges that on July 30, 2014, “Defendant Dr. Sisodia became very angry and

18

hostill [sic] towards Plaintiff for filing the appeal . . . .” Plaintiff does not allege an adverse

19

action—only an emotional reaction by Defendant Sisodia. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that he

20

continued to press for care including seeing Dr. Sisodia on August 5, 2014 and “again

21

requested a chrono from Defendant Sisodia due to continued aggravating rash,” and

22

resubmitting an appeal on October 22, 2014 requested a daily shower allowance. This activity

23

does not indicate that Defendant Sisodia’s reaction to one of Plaintiff’s appeals chilled his

24

exercise of his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff thus fails to state a claim for a constitutional

25

violation of the First Amendment based on retaliation.

26
27
28

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable

claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court has already screened
5

1

Plaintiff’s initial complaint with substantially similar allegations and found that it failed to state

2

a claim, and has provided Plaintiff guidance on the relevant law to assist his amendment. The

3

Court also that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by further

4

amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

5

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

6

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A

7

and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim

8

upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the Athree-

9

strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th

10

Cir. 2011).

11

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

12

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

13

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

14

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned AObjections to

15

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

16

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

17

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

18

(9th Cir. 1991)).

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6