Cranford v. Risley

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/17/2016 recommending that action be dismissed re 16 Second Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/20/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DR. RISLEY,

15

Case No. 1:15-cv-00949 LJO DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on June 24, 2015.
On October 28, 2015, the Court screened his complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend.

19
20

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on November 16, 2015.

21

The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on February 25, 2016, and

22

dismissed it with leave to amend. He filed his Second Amended Complaint on March 8, 2016.1 He

23

names Dawnmarie Risley as the sole Defendant.

24

A.

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part,

25
26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD

if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1

Plaintiff’s document is titled, “Motion for Second Amended Complaint,” and contains his factual allegations. The
motion is not on a form complaint. However, given that Plaintiff was due to file an amended complaint and this filing
included his factual allegations, the Court will consider this to be his Second Amended Complaint.

1

1

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

2

the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

3

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

4

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)

5

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are

6

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681

7

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are

8

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

9

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt

10

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler,

11

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive

12

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

13

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks

14

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of
satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
B.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California,

where the events at issue occurred.
Defendant is a psychologist at CSH, and was working under another doctor’s license. When
she began working in Unit 1, Plaintiff was on a safe dose of lithium. However, when Defendant
took over the presiding doctor’s duties, Defendant raised the dose. Plaintiff’s dose is supposed to be
monitored by blood draws every month. Plaintiff contends that Defendant permitted him to go “well
beyond” the standard amount of time prior to checking the medication level.

26
27
28
2

1

Plaintiff contends that the dose was too high and that he became very sick. He had to spend

2

time in an outside hospital, when he had his gallbladder removed. The doctor who performed the

3

removal told him that the organ had “rotted away” due to lithium poisoning. ECF No. 16, at 1.

4

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to monitor his lithium level, as she should have done.

5

He contends that he cannot take pain medications containing aspirin and therefore had to endure

6

certain amounts of pain after the surgery.

7

C.

8
9

ANALYSIS
The courts have commonly applied Eighth Amendment standards to claims made by civil

detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment. See e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th

10

Cir.1998) (applying Eighth Amendment standards to evaluate pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth

11

Amendment claims).

12

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

13

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference

14

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012),

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014);
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat
[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680
F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096).
Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s
pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122
(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which
entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks
omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

26
27
28
3

In the first screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations were too vague to state

1
2

a claim for relief. The Court gave specific examples of facts that were missing- such as how

3

Defendant failed to monitor his medication, or how she was, in any way, involved in his treatment.

4

In the order screening his First Amended Complaint, the Court explained that Plaintiff added

5

little, if any, new factual information. Without additional facts relating to Defendant’s treatment, the

6

Court could not determine whether Defendant acted with deliberate indifference.

7

In his latest amendment, Plaintiff again fails to correct this deficiency. While he continues to

8

allege that Defendant increased his lithium dose and failed to properly monitor the level of

9

medication, he does not provide any facts to suggest that she “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an

10

excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. He again fails to provide

11

specific facts relating to her treatment, and he therefore fails to state a claim for which relief may be

12

granted.

13

D.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff has had two opportunities to correct the deficiencies in his claim, but he has failed to
do so. The Court informed Plaintiff in the prior screening order that this would be his final
opportunity to amend. As Plaintiff continues to provide insufficient facts to show that Defendant
acted with deliberate indifference, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted.

18
19

Therefore, the Court recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

20
21
22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the ///
///

26
///
27
///
28
4

1

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

2

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 17, 2016

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5