Bivins v. Ju et al
Filing
53
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/06/18 ORDERING service is appropriate for Dr. Borges. The clerk of the court shall send plaintiff 1 summons, 1 USM-285 form, 1 instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint 52 to be completed and returned within 30 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that Dr. Moon be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH BIVINS,
12
No. 2:16-cv-0389 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
DR. JEU,
15
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
17
18
Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought under 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 19, 2018, Dr. Jeu was dismissed from this action without
20
prejudice, and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint against Dr. Borges.
21
On August 9, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming only Dr. Moon as a
22
defendant. On August 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint naming both Dr.
23
Moon and Dr. Borges as defendants. Thus, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is now before
24
the court.
25
Screening Standards
26
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
27
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
28
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
1
1
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
2
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
3
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
4
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
5
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
6
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
7
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
8
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
9
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
10
A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
11
which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
12
support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
13
U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt
14
Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under
15
this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp.
16
Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light
17
most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v.
18
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
19
Discussion
20
Dr. Moon
21
First, plaintiff was not granted leave to name additional defendants in his amended
22
pleading. Rather, plaintiff was granted leave to name Dr. Borges because Dr. Borges was the
23
only individual named in plaintiff’s initial appeal FSP HC 15015865. (ECF No. 48 at 11.) Dr.
24
Moon was not named as a defendant in plaintiff’s original complaint. Because plaintiff was not
25
granted leave to amend his complaint to add new defendants, or to name Dr. Moon as a
26
defendant, Dr. Moon should be dismissed without prejudice.
27
////
28
////
2
1
Dr. Borges
2
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Borges was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical
3
needs by denying plaintiff Harvoni medication treatment for plaintiff’s Hepatitis C virus, relying
4
on outdated criteria to find plaintiff should only receive interferon, which is known to cause
5
complications in African Americans. Plaintiff contends Dr. Borges applied guidelines and
6
criteria not applicable to Harvoni to deny plaintiff adequate medical treatment.
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s second amended complaint and, for the limited
7
8
purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment
9
claim against defendant Dr. Borges. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
10
Conclusion
11
1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Dr. Borges.
12
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, an
13
instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 52).
14
3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached
15
Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:
16
a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;
17
b. One completed summons;
18
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above;
19
and
20
d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint (ECF No. 52).
21
4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of service.
22
Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to
23
serve the above-named defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of
24
costs.
25
26
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Dr. Moon be dismissed without
prejudice.
27
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
28
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
3
1
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
2
with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
3
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that
4
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
5
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
6
Dated: November 6, 2018
7
8
9
/bivi0389.1.56
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH BIVINS,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-0389 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
DR. JEU,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order
filed _____________________ :
19
____
completed summons form
20
____
completed USM-285 forms
21
____
copies of the ___________________
Amended Complaint
22
23
DATED:
24
25
26
________________________________
Plaintiff
27
28
1
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?