Green v. Nangalama, et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/8/2014 ORDERING that the court DECLINES to adopt the 7 findings and recommendations. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONZELL GREEN,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-2390-LKK-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District
19
of California local rules.
20
On April 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21
were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a
22
specified time. Objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.
23
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this
24
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The magistrate judge recommends that
25
plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and
26
this case be dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons set forth herein, the court declines to
27
adopt the findings and recommendations.
28
Section 1915(g) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
1
1
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
2
3
4
5
28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Plaintiff does not dispute the finding that he has had three prior actions
6
dismissed under the statutory criteria. He does, however, object to the magistrate judge’s finding
7
that “it does not appear that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when
8
he filed the instant complaint.” Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 7) at 2.
The magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff was not under imminent danger of serious
9
10
physical injury when he filed the complaint arises from the finding that plaintiff “is receiving
11
treatment for his condition” but “disagrees with the treatment he is receiving.” Findings and
12
Recommendations, filed April 17, 2014 (ECF No. 7) at 2. Plaintiff objects to the finding that he
13
is receiving treatment for his nerve pain. Plaintiff’s objection has merit.
Plaintiff has attached to his complaint an administrative grievance and responses thereto
14
15
from 2011. While the responses at the first and second levels of review indicate that plaintiff was
16
receiving treatment when those were prepared, the Director’s Level decision shows that as of
17
October 2011, plaintiff was not receiving any pain medication and that medical appointments in
18
August and September 2011 “showed no active medical problems related to facial neurologic
19
symptoms” and that “referral to a neurologist was not medically indicated.” Complaint (ECF No.
20
1) at 12. Plaintiff was “encouraged to submit a CDC 7362, Request for Health Care Services
21
Form, to discuss any medical concerns” he might have. Id. The inference to be drawn from this
22
exhibit and the contentions in plaintiff’s objections is that plaintiff stopped receiving pain
23
medication for his facial nerve condition by the end of April 2011 and has not receiving any
24
treatment for his facial nerve condition since that time.1
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that Ҥ 1915(g)
25
26
concerns only a threshold procedural question – whether the filing fee must be paid upfront or
27
later.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Section 1915(g) “‘is not a
28
1
It appears plaintiff may also be challenging defendants’ failure to provide surgical treatment for the nerve damage.
2
1
vehicle for determining the merits of a claim.’” Id. (quoting Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328,
2
331 (7th Cir. 2003)).2 The relevant § 1915(g) inquiry is not “overly detailed” and “the exception
3
applies if the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of
4
serious physical injury’” at the time of filing. Id. Allegations of ongoing serious physical injury
5
that is either “‘imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed’” are sufficient to satisfy
6
the imminent danger exception to the § 1915(g) bar. Id. at 1056 (quoting Ciarpaglini, 352 F.3d at
7
330 (emphasis in original)).
8
9
Here, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint suggest that he is claiming defendants are
violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide treatment to repair the
10
nerve damage. It is unclear from the complaint itself whether plaintiff’s claim is grounded solely
11
in the alleged denial of treatment to repair the damage, or whether it is also based on the alleged
12
denial of pain medication, and the magistrate judge did not have the benefit of the clarity
13
provided by plaintiff’s objections at the time he made the findings and recommendations before
14
the court. Plaintiff’s objections make clear his Eighth Amendment claim is grounded in the
15
alleged absence of all treatment, including pain medication, for the alleged ongoing pain and
16
other effects of his facial nerve damage. This claim satisfies the requirements of the exception to
17
the §1915(g) bar.
18
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19
1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations filed April 17,
20
2014; and
21
2. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
22
proceedings.
23
DATED: July 8, 2014.
24
25
2
26
27
28
Here, the magistrate judge also found in a footnote that “[i]t further appears plaintiff’s complaint does not state a
claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights as he is receiving treatment for his condition, and a disagreement
as to the proper treatment is insufficient to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 [sic].” Findings and
Recommendations (ECF No. 7) at 2. This finding, which does not form the basis for the recommended dismissal of
this action, is also based on the finding to which plaintiff objects, namely, that he is receiving treatment for the nerve
damage and its alleged consequences.
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?