Jacques v. Lopez, Jr. et al

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting 9 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/17. K. Joseph (Correctional Investigative Service Unit Agent), S. Monge (Correctional Officer), D. Barrios (Registered Nurse) and J. Gonzalez (Correctional Officer) terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MICHAEL JACQUES,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
J. LOPEZ, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01289-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS,
FOR THE FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Doc. No. 9)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Michael Jacques is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred

21

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 31, 2016, asserting Eighth Amendment violations

23

based on his allegations of: (i) excessive use of force; (ii) failure to intervene in the use of

24

excessive force; (iii) conspiracy to file false incident and medical reports; (iv) deliberate

25

indifference to serious medical need; and (v) unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Doc.

26

No. 1.) In his complaint, plaintiff alleges the following.

27

On August 24, 2015, plaintiff was transferred from Los Angeles County Jail to North

28

Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) in Delano, California. (Id. at 14, ¶ 19.) After arriving to NKSP,
1

1

plaintiff was medically evaluated. (Id. at 14–15, ¶¶ 19–22.) When the evaluation was nearly

2

complete, defendants Lopez, Razo, Athie, and Garza began to strike plaintiff on both sides of his

3

face. (Id. at 15, ¶¶ 21–22.) Defendants then slammed him onto the ground and continued to kick,

4

knee, and choke him. (Id. at 15–16, ¶¶ 22–24.) Defendant Vasquez did not attempt to stop the

5

altercation despite having the opportunity to prevent it. (Id. at 16, ¶ 24.) While plaintiff was in a

6

“holding cage,” defendant Aro, a nurse, documented plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at 17–18, ¶ 27.)

7

Defendant Aro’s report indicated that plaintiff had swollen areas to the right side of the head, ear

8

lobe, right inner leg, and left elbow, bruising to the mouth, a cut and reddened area to the right

9

arm, and bruising or discolored area which was swollen to the left side of the mouth. (Id.)

10

Plaintiff requested medical treatment and indicated to the nurse that he was in pain, but defendant

11

Aro did not provide him treatment. (Id.)

12

On April 18, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

13

recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Lopez, Razo,

14

Athie, and Garza for excessive use of force, and against defendant Vasquez for failing to

15

intervene during the alleged use of excessive force, and that all other claims and defendants be

16

dismissed. (Doc. No. 7.) On May 3, 2017, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to

17

proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the court’s screening order. (Doc. No. 8.)

18

On May 4, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

19

recommending that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action for the

20

failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was permitted fourteen days to file objections.

21

More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections were filed.

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

23

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that with

24

respect to plaintiff’s claims of excessive force, failure to intervene in the use of excessive force,

25

conspiracy to file false incident and medical reports, and unconstitutional conditions of

26

confinement, the May 4, 2017 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and

27

proper analysis. Accordingly, the court will adopt that part of the findings and recommendations.

28

However, as discussed below, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations with
2

1

respect to plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against defendant Aro.

2

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

3

In the findings and recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge concluded that

4

plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment

5

against defendant Aro.

6

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, a prisoner-

7

plaintiff must allege facts showing “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v.

8

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

In the Ninth Circuit, a deliberate indifference claim has two components:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

First, the plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by
demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner's condition could
result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain.' Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant's
response to the need was deliberately indifferent. This second
prong—defendant's response to the need was deliberately
indifferent—is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure
to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b)
harm caused by the indifference. Indifference may appear when
prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical
treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison
physicians provide medical care.
Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
Here, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant Aro attended to him after his

19

altercation with defendants Lopez, Razo, Athie, and Garza. (Id. at 17–18, ¶ 27.) Plaintiff also

20

alleges that defendant Aro observed him to have a number of injuries—swollen areas on his

21

mouth, head, ear lobes, legs, and arms—and documented these injuries in a report. (Id.) Finally,

22

plaintiff alleges that he requested medical treatment from defendant Aro and indicated to

23

defendant that he was in pain, but received no medical treatment. (Id.) In the screening order

24

which was incorporated into the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge essentially

25

found these allegations to be insufficiently detailed to state a cognizable claim of deliberate

26

indifference to a serious medical need. (Doc. No. 7 at 9) (“Plaintiff does not allege what he stated

27

to Defendant Aro when he requested medical care and what response Defendant Aro had.”) The

28

undersigned disagrees.
3

1

The facts as alleged by plaintiff in his complaint, if taken as true, support a plausible

2

inference that defendant Aro was aware of a serious medical need on the part of plaintiff and

3

consciously disregarded it. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding

4

that plaintiff adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment

5

by alleging that that prison officials were aware of dental injuries such as bleeding gums and

6

broken teeth, but failed to take any action to relieve his pain or address his dental injuries); Austin

7

v. County of Alameda, No. C-15-0942 EMC, 2015 WL 3833239, at * (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015)

8

(finding that plaintiff adequately alleged deliberate indifference by asserting that defendants

9

failed to provide medical treatment following a beating by prison officials despite apparent

10

injuries); Baker v. County of Sonoma, No. C-08-03433 EDL, 2009 WL 330937, at *1, 7 (N.D.

11

Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (finding that plaintiff adequately alleged deliberate indifference claim by

12

asserting that prison officials denied him pain medication following a beating by correctional

13

officers); see generally Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1082–83 (9th

14

Cir. 2013) (explaining that a “failure to act given the patent nature of the inmate’s condition . . . is

15

conduct sufficiently severe to evidence an Eighth Amendment violation”) (citing Tlamka v.

16

Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2001)). The allegations of the complaint as to this claim have

17

been set forth above. No more detailed allegations with respect to the words spoken by plaintiff

18

or defendant Aro in connection with the denial of medical care are required at the pleading stage.

19

The court will therefore decline to adopt the findings and recommendations to the extent

20

they recommend the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth

21

Amendment against defendant Aro.1

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25
1

26
27
28

As noted above, plaintiff has indicated he was willing to proceed only on the claims found to be
cognizable in the court’s screening order. (Doc. No. 8.) If plaintiff does not wish to pursue his
claim against defendant Aro for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, he is instructed to file a notice of voluntary dismissal as to that claim and
defendant.
4

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above

3

1. The May 4, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 8) are adopted in part;

4

2. This action will proceed on plaintiff’s claims against: defendants J. Lopez, Jr., R.

5

Razo, P. Athie, and J. Garza for excessive use of force; defendant T. Vasquez for

6

failing to intervene during the alleged use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

7

Amendment; and defendant G. Aro for deliberate indifference to a serious medical

8

need in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

9

3. All other claims, and defendants K. Joseph, S. Monge, J. Gonzalez, and D. Barrios, are

10

dismissed from this action for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

11

granted; and

12

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for proceedings

13
14
15

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5