Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 20

SCREENING ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this Action Proceed Against Defendant C. Sisodia for Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need in Violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all Other Claims and Defendants be Dismissed with Prejudice, re 19 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/7/16. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

RONALD YOUNG,

1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,

11

SCREENING ORDER

v.

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT C.
SISODIA FOR DELIBERATE
INDIFFERENCE TO A SERIOUS
MEDICAL NEED IN VIOLATION OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT ALL
OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 19)

17

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

12
13

C. SISODIA AND J. KIM,
Defendants.

14
15

18
19
20

I.

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

21

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

22

commencing this action on April 27, 2015. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened Plaintiff’s

23

complaint on June 24, 2016, finding that it failed to state any claims against any of the

24

Defendants upon which relief may be granted under section 1983, and giving Plaintiff leave to

25

amend. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on July 21, 2016, and the

26

Court initially issued Findings and Recommendations for dismissal for failure to state a claim

27

without leave to amend. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint on

28

October 14, 2016. (ECF No. 17). On October 24, 2016, this Court vacated its Findings and
1

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

1

Recommendations and granted leave to Plaintiff to file the second amended complaint, (ECF

2

No. 18), which is before this Court for screening.

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SCREENING

4

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing

14

that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations

15

are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

16

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.

17

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955

18

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge

19

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

20

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual

21

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Iqbal 556 U.S. at

22

678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as

23

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting

24

this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th

25

Cir. 2009).

26

III.

ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a rash and was denied daily showers needed to care

28

for that rash due. Plaintiff claims that he developed a skin rash following rotator cuff surgery.
2

1

Plaintiff was prescribed a medication from the surgery that caused skin irritations, legions of

2

sores, outbreaks and rashes on his body. An off-site specialist, Dr. P. Haines Ely, prescribed

3

daily showers in addition to medication for the rash.

4

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint focuses on the fact that Plaintiff was issued a

5

comprehensive accommodation chrono on July 30, 2014, which appears to require that he be

6

given daily showers. He attached the chrono to the second amended complaint, and it appears

7

to show that he was authorized to receive a daily shower. It is signed by C. Sisodia.

8

Plaintiff alleged that on July 30, 2014, the same day the chrono was issued, Defendant

9

Sisodia stated “even though dermatology recommended daily showers to keep the rectal area

10

clean you were denied this. Medical staff is under no obligation to provide treatment as

11

recommended by an outside specialist.” Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Sisodia failed to

12

provide notice of the chrono at that time and during the various requests and appeals that

13

followed. Defendant Sisodia became very angry and hostile using derogatory language for

14

wasting their time with the appeal, which was going to be denied regardless.

15

Despite this chrono, Plaintiff failed to receive daily showers. Plaintiff alleges that

16

Defendants’ continued denial of shower and adequate medical care after the issuance of the

17

above chrono is a prima facie showing of deliberate indifference, among other things.

18

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Dr. J. Kim failed to provide adequate medical care

19

after being given notice of the specialist treatment plan, which required daily showers and

20

medication.
Plaintiff’s complaint also includes numerous conclusory legal allegations regarding a

21
22
23

custom and practice of maintaining a code of silence and violating constitutional guarantees.
IV.

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096).

8

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

9

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

The requisite state of mind is one of subjective

10

This is Plaintiff’s third complaint. The Court has twice held that Plaintiff’s allegations

11

do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on the

12

allegations in those complaints. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint omits many of the

13

details in the earlier complaints and relies heavily on legal conclusions.

14

But the Court is troubled by the fact that Plaintiff points to a signed chrono authorizing

15

daily showers from within the institution. Plaintiff also alleges that the same person who

16

signed that chrono (Defendant Sisodia) appears to have denied Plaintiff daily showers without

17

reason. While the allegations are sparse, liberally construed in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds

18

that these allegations state a claim for denial of medical care, in violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment. It is possible that additional facts may ultimately show that Defendant Sisodia

20

did not act with the required deliberate indifference. However, based on the facts now before

21

the Court, the Court will recommend that this one claim to go forward as to Defendant Sisodia.

22

The Court does not find such a claim against Defendant Kim. The second amended

23

complaint contains almost no facts regarding Defendant Kim. The fact that Defendant Kim did

24

not direct daily showers is not enough to find deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

25

under the law.

26

The Court also does not find any other constitutional violations for the reasons

27

described in prior orders. Indeed, this second amended complaint contains even fewer facts

28

that could possibly support such claims, such as a claim for retaliation.
4

1
2

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s second amended complaint states a cognizable claim

3

against Defendant Sisodia for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of

4

the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has failed to state any other claims, or claims against any

5

other defendants. The Court is not inclined to permit additional leave to amend. This is

6

Plaintiff’s third complaint and the Court has given ample legal guidance.

7

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case proceed against Defendant

8

Sisodia for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

9

Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed with prejudice.

10

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

11

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

12

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

13

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

(9th Cir. 1991)).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 7, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5