Paez, Jr. v. Community Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING In Part 12 Findings and Recommendations and Dismissing Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/24/17. Third Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO G. PAEZ, JR., 14 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 1:17-cv-00215-LJO-SAB (PC) v. COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., (ECF Nos. 11, 12) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff Guillermo G. Paez, Jr., is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (F&Rs), recommending dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. The F&Rs were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 28 1 1 findings and recommendations largely to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The 2 Court adds the following observations about additional deficiencies in Plaintiff’s second 3 amended complaint to guide him in any future amendment. 4 The Eighth Amendment demands, among other things, that prison officials not act in a 5 manner “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 6 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). An Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate 7 medical care has two elements: “the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of 8 the defendant's response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992). 9 A medical need is “serious” “if the failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result in further 10 significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Id. (quoting Estelle, 429 11 U.S. at 104). “Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does 12 not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th 13 Cir. 1992). 14 Although Plaintiff has now alleged that he received some form of medical care after he 15 was taken into custody, Plaintiff has failed to allege how any Defendant who cared for him after 16 he was taken into custody acted with deliberate indifference. At best, Plaintiff’s claims amount to 17 medical negligence, which is insufficient. 18 Further, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiffs must link each named 19 Defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s 20 federal rights. Plaintiff must specify which Defendant(s) is allegedly responsible for each 21 violation of his constitutional rights and the factual basis of his Complaint must put each 22 Defendant on notice of Plaintiff’s claims against him. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 23 1171 (9th Cir. 2004). In sum, Plaintiff must allege with specific facts who did what, when, and 24 how it violated his Eighth Amendment rights. 25 In addition, Plaintiff attempts to impose liability on the unknown Chief Medical Officer 26 for failing to supervise his/her subordinates adequately. Section 1983 does not permit this form 27 of supervisory liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). 28 Finally, the Court agrees that amendment would be futile as to any events that took place 2 1 prior to the date on which Plaintiff was taken into custody, as the Eighth Amendment does not apply 2 under such circumstances. However, Plaintiff will be afforded one more opportunity to amend his 3 complaint with respect to events that took place after he was taken into custody. Plaintiff is warned 4 that any such allegations must comport with the guidance provided in the F&Rs and in this Order and 5 that he will not be afforded any further opportunities to amend his complaint. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. PART; 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 10 11 The findings and recommendations, filed April 11, 2017, is ADOPTED IN 3. Within thirty days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a third amended 12 complaint. If Plaintiff fails to meet this deadline, this case will be dismissed with 13 prejudice. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ May 24, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?