Darden v. Mechael et al
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of 6 First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/28/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GERALDINE DARDEN,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIPE MECHAEL, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00505-LJO-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 6]
Plaintiff Geraldine Darden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 28, 2017.
20
I.
21
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
23
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
24
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
25
“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]
26
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
27
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
28
to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
1
1
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
2
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
3
(2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the
4
deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
5
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally
6
construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
7
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible,
8
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named
9
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
10
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not
11
sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying
12
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
13
II.
14
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
15
16
17
Plaintiff names Philipe Mechael, Ikwinder Singh, Robert Mitchell, and H. Longia, as
Defendants.
Philipe Mechael was assigned as Plaintiff’s primary care physician. At their initial medical
18
visit, Plaintiff explained to Dr. Mechael that she experiences a high level of pain, burning hands, legs,
19
feet, and mouth as being the most problematic symptoms as a result of multiple sclerosis. Plaintiff
20
explained that he had been taking Gabapentin for appropriately six years and it minimized the
21
symptoms she experienced and provided a better quality of life.
22
23
24
25
On June 3, 2016, July 31, 2016, August 1, 2016, and October 2 through 6, 2016, Plaintiff was
not able to obtain her prescribed medication.
Plaintiff informed Dr. Ikwinder Singh in writing that she suffers from multiple sclerosis and
was not getting the medication to treat her symptoms.
26
Robert Mitchell, Chief Medical Executive, had previously been Plaintiff’s primary care
27
physician and was fully aware of Plaintiff’s illness. Therefore, when Plaintiff was not provided
28
medication on the dates in question, Dr. Mitchell became a responsible participant.
2
1
2
At an interview on August 11, 2016, Plaintiff spoke with Dr. Longia and expressed her
concerns for the lapse in her medication on the dates in question.
3
III.
4
DISCUSSION
5
A.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need
6
While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical
7
care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to
8
an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled
9
in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v.
10
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).
11
Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition
12
could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that
13
“the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing
14
Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond
15
to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680
16
F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective
17
recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and
18
quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.
19
Isolated occurrences of neglect do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.
20
O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks omitted); Wood v.
21
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-
22
patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a [section] 1983
23
claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted); accord
24
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1122-23.
25
To prevail, plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically
26
unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious disregard of
27
an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)
28
(internal citations omitted).
3
1
Plaintiff’s claims of inadequate medical claim stem from the denial of Gabapentin on seven
2
separate occasions. Even assuming the validity of Plaintiff’s allegations, such allegations fail to
3
establish that any of the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
4
needs. Instead, at most, the facts as alleged demonstrate nothing more than isolated occurrences of
5
neglect that do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
6
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (repeatedly failing to satisfy requests for aspirins and antacids to
7
alleviate headache, nausea and pains is not constitutional violation; it may constitute grounds for
8
medical malpractice but does not rise to the level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain). In
9
addition, the fact that Plaintiff may not have agreed with certain prescriptions or the time frame for
10
such prescriptions is insufficient to give rise to a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference.
11
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief.
12
IV.
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
14
Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and the deficiencies in his
15
pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is largely identical
16
to the original complaint.
17
complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would
18
support a claim for a due process violation or access to the court, and further amendment would be
19
futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may not deny
20
leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue,
21
the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130
22
(9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).
Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s original and first amended
23
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
24
1.
25
The instant action be dismissed, without further leave to amend, for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief; and
26
2.
27
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
28
The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action.
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after
4
1
being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
2
Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
3
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
4
result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
5
(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
9
July 28, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?