Youngblood v. Clark et al

Filing 17

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/22/17. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01746-DAD-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

19

Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2017, the Court dismissed

21

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s second amended

22

complaint, filed on May 19, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 16.)

23

I.

24

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

25

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

26

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

27

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief

Screening Requirement and Standard

28
1

1

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. §

2

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

3

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

4

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

5

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

6

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell

7

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s

8

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v.

9

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

10

omitted).

11

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient

12

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the

13

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v.

14

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant

15

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the

16

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572

17

F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

18

II.

19

Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”), where the

20

events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Dr. Clark, Dr. Jeffrey Wang, Dr.

21

Kim, John Doe One and John Doe Two as defendants. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that he injured

22

his back, neck and shoulders during transfer from Salinas Valley State Prison to R. J. Donovan.

23

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Clark, Wang, Kim and John Does One and Two have violated

24

his rights to medical care and treatment by denying him a back brace. Plaintiff requests compensatory

25

and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

III.

Discussion
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

4

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed

5

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

6

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

7

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

8

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974).

9

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550

10

U.S. at 556–557.

11

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims showing that he

12

is entitled to relief. Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations describing what happened, when it

13

happened and who was involved. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that he was denied certain a back

14

brace are not sufficient.

15

B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 20

16

A party asserting a claim “may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it

17

has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952

18

(7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Thus multiple claims against a

19

single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B

20

against Defendant 2.”

21

defendants in one action if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the

22

alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions

23

or occurrences; and [ ] any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Therefore, claims against different parties may be joined together in one

25

complaint only if the claims have similar factual backgrounds and have common issues of law or fact.

26

Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350–51 (9th Cir.1997).

George, 507 F.3d at 607.

27
28
3

However, multiple parties may be joined as

1

Here, Plaintiff appears to bring claims against defendants at R. J. Donovan and against

2

defendants at CSP-Corcoran. Although the claims relate to an injury to his back, neck and shoulders,

3

they involve unique claims against doctors at two different facilities during two different time periods.
C. Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference

4
5

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate

6

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

7

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (1976)). The two part

8

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by

9

demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the

10

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was

11

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

12

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and fails

13

to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Arizona, 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010).

14

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v. Chung, 391

15

F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from which he could make

16

an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must make the inference. Farmer v.

17

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). Negligence, inadvertence, or differences

18

of medical opinion between the prisoner and health care providers, however, do not violate the Eighth

19

Amendment. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

20

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Lyons v. Busi, 566 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1191-1192 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

21

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against any of the defendants regarding his

22

medical treatment. At best, Plaintiff has alleged a disagreement between himself and his medical

23

providers regarding the need to pursue one course of treatment over another. A difference of opinion

24

does not amount to deliberate indifference, and Plaintiff has failed to establish that the course of

25

treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. Jackson, 90 F.3d at

26

332; Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242.

27

///

28

///
4

1

IV.

Conclusion and Recommendation

2

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and

3

20, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Despite being

4

provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the

5

deficiencies in his complaint and further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

6

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

8

comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20, and failure to state a claim upon which

9

relief may be granted under section 1983.

10

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

11

assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being

12

served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court.

13

The

14

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may

15

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson

16

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir.

17

1991)).

document

should

be

captioned

“Objections

to

Magistrate

Judge’s

Findings

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 22, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

and