Diaz v. Martel et al
Filing
16
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/06/12 ORDERING plaintiff's current motion to proceed in forma pauperis 15 is denied as duplicative. Plaintiff proceeds in form pauperis pursuant to his a pplication filed 06/23/10 8 . Service is appropriate for defendants Hashimoto and Smith. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, instruction sheet, 1 summons and a copy of the 07/14/11 amended complaint to be completed and returned within 30 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that Defendants Ram and Martel be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RANDOLPH M. DIAZ,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:10-cv-1388 MCE KJN P
vs.
M. MARTEL, et al.,
14
ORDER and
Defendants.
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, in
17
this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following the court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s
18
original complaint, with leave to amend, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
19
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and, for the limited
20
purposes of Section 1915A screening, finds that it may state potentially cognizable claims, based
21
on a theory of deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, against defendant physicians
22
Hashimoto and Smith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, for the reasons stated below, the court
23
finds that the complaint does not state potentially cognizable claims against defendants Ram or
24
Martel.
25
26
Plaintiff alleges that, on October 2, 2008, he was injured while a passenger in a
correctional van en route to an outside medical facility. Plaintiff states that the van he was riding
1
1
in was rear-ended by a second correctional van, driven by correctional officer Ram. Plaintiff
2
alleges that, as a result of the accident, he sustained injuries to his neck, back, and shoulder, and
3
continues to experience pain, headaches and dizziness, but that he has been denied adequate
4
medical treatment, perhaps because correctional staff are attempting to conceal the accident.
5
Plaintiff seeks proper medical treatment and damages.
6
Plaintiff names two medical defendants: (1) Dr. W. Hashimoto, one of plaintiff’s
7
treating physicians, and the physician who interviewed plaintiff pursuant to the First Level
8
Review of plaintiff’s pertinent (and exhausted) administrative grievance; and (2) Dr. Christopher
9
Smith, who signed the denial of a request for medical authorization that plaintiff obtain an MRI
10
of his right shoulder. Based on a liberal construction of the amended complaint and supporting
11
exhibits, plaintiff contends that these defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s
12
serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. While the current allegations are
13
cursory, plaintiff will be permitted to further develop his case against these defendants, should
14
this action survive a motion to dismiss.
15
In contrast, plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Ram fail to state a potentially
16
cognizable claim. Plaintiff states only that correctional officer Ram was “responsible for my
17
safety,” but “was negligent and reckless by not paying attention of (sic) his driving duties.” (Dkt.
18
No. 14 at 3.) To pursue this state law claim, an alleged tort, pursuant to this court’s supplemental
19
jurisdiction, plaintiff was required to timely file a claim under the California Tort Claims Act.
20
Timely presentation of a written tort claim against a public entity or its employees, and action on
21
or rejection of the claim, are conditions precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings
22
County, 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244-45 (2004). Plaintiff does not allege compliance with the state’s
23
requirements for filing a tort claim, and such compliance is not demonstrated by plaintiff’s
24
exhibits. Because the court previously informed plaintiff of these deficiencies (see n.1, infra),
25
defendant Ram should be dismissed from this action without further leave to amend.
26
The last named defendant is A. Martel, former Warden of Mule Creek State
2
1
Prison. Plaintiff alleges only that Martel “is responsible fo his prison Employee’s” (sic). (Dkt.
2
No. 1 at 3.) However, as the court previously informed plaintiff,1 supervisory liability may be
3
imposed only when the supervisor participated in or directed the alleged constitutional violations,
4
or knew of the violations of subordinates and failed to act to prevent them.” Corales v. Bennett,
5
567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff makes no such allegations against Martel, or the
6
current warden of Mule Creek State Prison. Thus, defendant Martel should also be dismissed
7
from this action without further leave to amend.
8
For these reasons, the court finds that the amended complaint appears to state
9
potentially cognizable claims against defendants Hashimoto and Smith; however, defendants
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
In reviewing plaintiff’s original complaint, and granting plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint, the court informed plaintiff (Dkt. No. 10 at 3-4):
The exhibits attached to the complaint demonstrate that plaintiff’s
relevant administrative grievance, exhausted through the Third
Level Review, was premised on plaintiff’s allegations that he has
been denied adequate medical care for his back and neck, including
denial of adequate pain management and physical therapy. There
is no indication that plaintiff has pursued a tort claim against the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. . . .
The court therefore construes plaintiff’s complaint as limited to a
potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim that plaintiff has
been denied adequate medical care. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976) (Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs manifested by intentional
delay or denial of treatment, or indifferent medical response). . . .
Nor does plaintiff state a potentially cognizable claim against the
Warden simply because he “is responsible for his prison
Employee’s (sic).” (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) “Under Section 1983,
supervisory officials are not liable for actions of subordinates on
any theory of vicarious liability. A supervisor may be liable [only]
if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the
constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection
between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
violation.” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-46 (9th Cir. 1989)
(citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that the Warden
directly or indirectly caused the alleged delay or denial of
plaintiff’s medical care, only that he was the principal supervisor at
MCSP.
3
1
Ram and Martel should be dismissed from this action without prejudice.
2
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. Plaintiff’s current motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 15), is denied
4
as duplicative; plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis pursuant to his application filed June 23,
5
2010 (Dkt. No. 8).
6
2. Service of process is appropriate for defendants Hashimoto and Smith.
7
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms,
8
one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the amended complaint filed July 14, 2011
9
(Dkt. No. 14).
10
11
4. Within thirty days after service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the
attached Notice of Submission of Documents, and submit the following documents to the court:
12
a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;
13
b. One completed summons;
14
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant; and
15
d. Three copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed July 14, 2011
16
(Dkt. No. 14).
17
5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of
18
service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States
19
Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4,
20
without payment of costs.
21
In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
22
1. Defendants Ram and Martel be dismissed from this action, without prejudice .
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
24
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
26
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
4
1
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
2
time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153
3
(9th Cir. 1991).
4
DATED: January 6, 2012
5
6
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
diaz1388.ord.1.ac
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RANDOLPH M. DIAZ,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
M. MARTEL, et al.,
14
15
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION
Defendants.
OF DOCUMENTS
____________________________________/
16
17
No. 2:10-cv-1388 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's
order filed
:
18
19
1
completed summons form
20
2
completed USM-285 forms
21
3
copies of the endorsed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 14)
22
23
24
25
26
Date
Plaintiff
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?