Lewis v. Ogbeuhi, et al.
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/3/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ASAD LEWIS,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-00603-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
v.
I. OGBEUHI, et al.
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
Screening Requirement and Standard
18
Plaintiff Asad Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge
20
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) On January 17, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with
21
leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on March 2, 2017, is
22
currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.)
23
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
24
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
25
1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
26
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
27
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); Id. §
28
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1
1
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
2
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 (2009) (citing Bell
5
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
6
true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
7
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
8
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
9
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
10
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted);
11
Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that
12
a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of
13
satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
14
F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
15
II.
16
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California. The
17
events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while he was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley
18
State Prison in Coalinga, California. Plaintiff names the following defendants in their individual
19
and official capacities: (1) Nurse Practitioner I. Ogbeuhi; (2) Sergeant J. Benavides; (3) Chief
20
Physician A. Ola; and (4) Licensed Vocational Nurse R. Hanson.
21
Plaintiff alleges the following:
22
On May 23, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR Form 1824 Reasonable Modification or
23
Accommodation Request in order to mitigate his lower back pain. On the same date, Plaintiff
24
complained to Defendant I. Ogbeuhi that he had been and was still suffering from severe lower
25
back pain, and requested a back brace. Defendant acknowledged his suffering and sent him to
26
therapy for lower back pain. However, even after Plaintiff completed therapy, Defendant I.
27
Ogbeuhi refused to issue Plaintiff a back brace despite telling Plaintiff to complete therapy first.
28
Defendant I. Ogbeuhi became upset and hostile to Plaintiff for requesting that Defendant issue a
2
1
back brace to lessen lower back pain.
2
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff submitted another request for medical attention. Plaintiff was
3
seen by Defendant I. Ogbeuhi, who was hostile when Plaintiff continued to complain of lower
4
back and needing a back brace. Defendant I. Ogbeuhi stated, “We don’t give back braces, what
5
we do is give pills!” As Plaintiff tried to inform Defendant I. Ogbeuhi of his pain and need,
6
Defendant I. Ogbeuhi exclaimed, “I don’t do that!” Defendant I. Ogbeuhi eventually approved a
7
back brace for Plaintiff, but never issued it.
8
Approximately four months later, Defendant I. Ogbeuhi sent Defendant Benevides to
9
Plaintiff’s cell to collect the back brace that was never issued. Defendant Benevides pressured
10
Plaintiff to produce a back brace and threatened to search Plaintiff’s cell. Defendant Benevides
11
then ordered Plaintiff to remain standing in the dayroom as he left for the medical office.
12
Plaintiff stood with a cane for approximately 30 minutes until Defendant Benevides returned.
13
Plaintiff then was escorted to the medical office where a back brace was issued.
14
On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant R. Hanson issued a back brace at
15
the order of Defendant I. Ogbeuhi. Defendant Hanson asked Plaintiff to sign a receipt. As
16
Plaintiff signed, Defendant Hanson stated, “This is to prove we complied and accommodated
17
you.” On September 30, 2014, Defendant Hanson called Plaintiff to the medical office and took
18
the back brace from Plaintiff without reason.
19
Plaintiff submitted several requests for medical services that went unanswered.
20
At some point, one of the defendants placed a phone call to the chief medical officer in
21
Plaintiff’s presence and discussed Plaintiff’s lower back issue. Plaintiff asserts that this makes it
22
clear that the Chief Medical Officer A. Ola was aware of Plaintiff’s condition and Defendant I.
23
Ogbeuhi’s actions regarding the back brace.
24
Plaintiff claims that Defendant I. Ogbeuhi was deliberately indifferent to his medical
25
condition by refusing him a back brace after Plaintiff completed therapy for lower back pain and
26
continued to suffer pain. Plaintiff claims that Defendant R. Hanson demonstrated deliberate
27
indifference by taking the back brace from Plaintiff twenty-four (24) hours after issuing it.
28
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ola showed deliberate indifference because he was made aware of
3
1
Plaintiff’s lower back pain and request for back brace, but did not act to remedy the problem.
2
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Benevides demonstrated deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
3
medical issue by demanding that Plaintiff remain standing for approximately 30 minutes when
4
Plaintiff has limits on standing for no longer than 15 minutes at a time. Defendant Benevides
5
knew of the 15 minute limit because he held a copy of the medical information in his hand and
6
had read it to Plaintiff just minutes before.
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.00 from
each defendant, plus costs, and any other relief the Court finds proper.
III.
Discussion
A. Eleventh Amendment – Official Capacity
11
Section 1983 authorizes a federal civil rights action against any “person” who acts under
12
color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Persons” who may be sued under Section 1983 do not
13
include a state or its entities, or state employees acting in their official capacities. See Will v.
14
Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
15
159 (1985) (the Eleventh Amendment bars federal damages action against a state and its entities).
16
Claims for damages against the state, its agencies or its officers for actions performed in
17
their official capacities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment, unless the state waives its
18
immunity. Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 169; see also Will, 491 U.S. at 71 (neither a state nor its officials
19
acting in their official capacities are persons under § 1983). Section 1983 does not abrogate the
20
states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45
21
(1979); see also Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991) (clarifying that the Eleventh Amendment
22
does not bar suits against state officials sued in their individual capacities).
23
Therefore, Plaintiff may not pursue his claims damages against the Defendants in their
24
official capacities. However, Plaintiff may pursue claims for damages under section 1983 against
25
the Defendants in their individual capacities.
26
B. Supervisory Liability
27
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Ola, the Chief Physician, provided treatment or
28
examined him on any occasion. Instead, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
4
1
Ola appears to arise out of Defendant Ola’s role as a supervising physician.
2
Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of
3
their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; Simmons v.
4
Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588
5
F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
6
Supervisors may be held liable only if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of
7
the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
8
1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567
9
F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, a supervisor’s participation can include his “own culpable
10
action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates,” “his acquiescence in
11
the constitutional deprivations of which the complaint is made,” or “conduct that showed a
12
reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205–06.
13
Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ola was aware of his lower back issue and
14
Defendant Ogbeuhi’s action regarding the back brace, this allegation is not sufficient to state a
15
cognizable claim. There is no indication that Defendant Ola examined Plaintiff or knew that
16
Plaintiff required a back brace. Further, Plaintiff’s allegations confirm that he received treatment
17
for his back, which included physical therapy and a subsequent order for a back brace.
18
C. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
19
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate
20
must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
21
1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (1976)).
22
The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical
23
need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further
24
significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s
25
response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
26
Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and
27
fails to adequately respond. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1018. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal
28
standard.” Id. at 1019; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official
5
1
must be aware of facts from which he could make an inference that “a substantial risk of serious
2
harm exists” and he must make the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
3
Mere difference of medical opinion is insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
4
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058.
5
Defendant Ogbeuhi
6
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Ogbeuhi. As
7
alleged, Defendant Ogbeuhi offered pills, ordered physical therapy and subsequently ordered a
8
back brace to treat Plaintiff’s lower back pain. Given Defendant Ogbeuhi’s provision of various
9
treatment modalities, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim of deliberate indifference to serious
Further, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Ogbeuhi ordered Defendant
10
medical needs.
11
Benevides to collect the back brace suggest that Defendant Ogbeuhi was unaware that a back
12
brace had not been issued. Absent such knowledge, Defendant Ogbeuhi could not have been
13
deliberately indifferent based on the failure to issue a back brace.
14
As a final matter, Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant Ogbeuhi’s request for return of
15
the back brace showed deliberate indifference. However, the fact that Defendant Ogbeuhi asked
16
that the back brace be returned is not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for deliberate
17
indifference. At most, Plaintiff has raised a difference of medical opinion regarding his need for
18
a back brace. A difference of opinion does not amount to a deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
19
serious medical needs. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
20
Defendant Benavides
21
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Benavides.
22
First, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Benevides pressured Plaintiff to produce a back brace
23
and threatened to search Plaintiff’s cell is not sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim.
24
Mere threats do not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Corales, 567 F.3d at 564-65 (citation
25
omitted).
26
Second, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Benevides demanded that Plaintiff remain
27
standing for approximately 30 minutes despite being aware that Plaintiff was limited to fifteen
28
minutes of standing is not sufficient to support a deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiff fails to
6
1
allege facts suggesting he incurred any form of harm because of Defendant Benevides’ actions.
2
Third, and finally, Plaintiff fails to allege facts evidencing that Defendant Benevides was
3
aware of Plaintiff’s alleged need for a back brace. At best, Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that
4
Defendant Benevides was merely following the directive of Plaintiff’s treating provider to
5
recover the back brace.
6
Defendant Hanson
7
Plaintiff claims that Defendant R. Hanson demonstrated deliberate indifference by taking
8
the back brace from Plaintiff twenty-four (24) hours after issuing it. This is insufficient to
9
support a cognizable deliberate indifference claim. As admitted by Plaintiff, Defendant Ogbeuhi
10
originally ordered the collection of Plaintiff’s back brace, and Plaintiff has demonstrated, at most,
11
a disagreement with his medical provider regarding the need for a back brace. Sanchez, 891 F.2d
12
at 242.
13
14
D. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon
15
which relief may be granted.
16
standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court, and further
17
leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
18
19
Despite being provided with the relevant legal and pleading
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to state a
cognizable claim.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
May 3, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?