Harrell v. California Forensic Medical Group Inc. et al
Filing
66
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/5/2018 GRANTING 61 Request for Extension of Time to file an Amended Complaint; VACATING 60 Findings and Recommendations; and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-0579 KJM DB P
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
18
19
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ refusal to treat him with
20
Hepatitis C medication violates various constitutional rights. Before the court is plaintiff’s
21
motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and his sixth amended complaint1
22
for screening. While the court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s concerns about the potential effects of
23
Hepatitis C, the court finds below that plaintiff has, again, failed to state a cognizable claim for
24
relief under § 1983. Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities, over several years, to allege a
25
////
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff identifies the most recent complaint as his fifth amended complaint. However, as set
forth below, he filed six prior complaints in this case. Therefore, his most recent complaint is his
sixth amended complaint.
1
1
cognizable claim. At this point, this court finds permitting plaintiff further opportunities to
2
amend would be fruitless and will recommend dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim.
3
BACKGROUND
4
Plaintiff initiated this action in March 2015. The gist of his complaint, and of his six
5
amended complaints, is that he suffers from Hepatitis C and wants to be treated with the
6
prescription medication Harvoni. Plaintiff attempted to file his original complaint under seal.
7
(ECF No. 1.) That request was denied and plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended
8
complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and numerous supplements to
9
it between April and July 2015. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17.) On screening, the court
10
permitted plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in order to make his complaint a single
11
document as required by Local Rule 220. (ECF No. 20.) In addition, the court instructed plaintiff
12
on the requirements for pleading an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference. (Id. at
13
4-7.)
14
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 28, 2015. (ECF No. 25.) The
15
court found that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim because he had not
16
shown the treatment doctors chose for his Hepatitis C was “medically unacceptable under the
17
circumstances” or how each of the named defendants was responsible for plaintiff’s injuries.
18
(ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff was again given an opportunity to file an amended complaint and was
19
again instructed on how to state a claim for deliberate indifference. (Id. at 5-8.)
20
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and, before it was screened, filed a request to
21
amend that complaint to include a state law claim. (ECF Nos. 28, 30.) That request was granted.
22
(ECF No. 31.) On April 20, 2016, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 38.)
23
Plaintiff repeated his assertion that he is being denied Harvoni. The court again found plaintiff
24
failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff was once more
25
informed about the legal standards for stating a claim and about the pleading requirements. The
26
court warned plaintiff that he would be given just one last opportunity to state a claim. (Id. at 1.)
27
28
Plaintiff then filed an appeal. (ECF Nos. 53, 54.) The Court of Appeals dismissed it for
lack of jurisdiction on June 14, 2017. (ECF No. 55.) Thereafter, on July 11, 2017, the court
2
1
granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF 57.)
2
However, the copy of the order served on plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. By October
3
2017, plaintiff had not updated his address with the court or otherwise resumed prosecution of
4
this action. The court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for
5
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 58.) When plaintiff did not respond, on November 28,
6
2017, the court recommended this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 60.)
7
On January 22, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended
8
complaint. (ECF No. 61.) Because plaintiff demonstrated good cause for an extension of time,
9
that request will be granted. Plaintiff also filed objections to the recommended dismissal of this
10
case. Because plaintiff is now resuming prosecution of his case, this court will vacate that
11
recommendation.
12
Plaintiff filed his fifth amended complaint on January 22, 2018 and, before the court had
13
an opportunity to consider it, he filed a sixth amended complaint on April 2, 2018. (ECF Nos. 62,
14
65.) The court will consider plaintiff’s most recent amended complaint as the complaint he
15
wishes to proceed on.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff has also filed several requests for a preliminary injunction to force the prison to
provide him Harvoni. The court denied each request. (ECF Nos. 27, 31, 43.)
SCREENING
The court has stated the standards for pleading a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
20
legal standards for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in three prior orders. (See
21
ECF Nos. 20, 27, 51.) Those standards will not be restated here. Plaintiff’s most recent
22
complaint is thoroughly inadequate. Plaintiff simply states that (1) he has Hepatitis C; (2) the
23
disease is causing him a great deal of stress because, among other things, it may lead to liver
24
cancer and liver damage; (3) the medication Harvoni is a cure for Hepatitis C; and (4) he has been
25
denied treatment for his disease. While plaintiff lists a number of defendants, he fails to explain
26
what any of them have done. As plaintiff has been informed numerous times, to allege a claim,
27
he must explain just what each defendant has done to violate his rights under the Eighth
28
Amendment. (See, e.g., Mar. 21, 2017 Order (ECF No. 51) at 9.)
3
It is clear from plaintiff’s filings that he is, understandably, very worried about the
1
2
Hepatitis C diagnosis. However, the fact that he is not receiving the treatment he feels he needs
3
does not establish deliberate indifference. “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient
4
and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” See
5
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Mayfield v. Craven, 433 F.2d
6
873, 874 (9th Cir. 1970)).
7
The court has screened four of the seven complaints plaintiff filed in this action. Plaintiff
8
has been instructed on the deliberate indifference standards and on the requirements for pleading
9
a cognizable claim under § 1983. Despite these instructions and opportunities, plaintiff has not
10
stated a claim upon which this court could grant relief. The court finds that providing plaintiff
11
any further opportunities to amend his complaint would be futile.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 61)
14
is granted; and
15
2. The Findings and Recommendations issued November 28, 2017 (ECF No. 60) are
16
vacated.
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s
17
18
failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
20
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
21
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
22
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
23
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
4
1
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
2
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
Dated: April 5, 2018
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/harr0579.fr
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?