Calloway v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
27
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/1/2019 DISMISSING plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to amend; and plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:16-CV-2532-WBS-DMC-P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 26).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
21
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
23
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
24
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
25
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
26
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
27
means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
28
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
1
1
complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
2
rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
3
with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
4
claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
5
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
6
and conclusory.
7
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
8
9
Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Total Renal Care, Inc.; (2) Davita
10
Healthcare, Inc.; (3) San Joaquin Kidney Clinic, Inc.; (4) San Joaquin General Hospital; (5)
11
Segriddy; (6) Carman; (7) Stacy; (8) Denise; (9) Irene; (10) Kent; (11) Jamie; (12) Foroutan; (13)
12
K. Min; (14) Alex; (15) Frank; and (16) Butts. See ECF No. 26, pgs. 1-2.
13
Plaintiff raises two claims. First, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his
14
8th Amendment rights by conspiring to do him harm in the course of medical treatment.
15
Generally, plaintiff alleges that (1) defendants deprived him of crucial hemodialysis and “declot”
16
treatment; (2) defendants isolated him in a hepatitis B room as retaliation for complaining; (3)
17
once given treatment, plaintiff was unnecessarily restrained; and (4) he was improperly implanted
18
with a catheter in his chest, resulting in a dangerous infection. See ECF No. 26, pgs. 5-8. Plaintiff
19
claims that defendant Forountan, a doctor at San Joaquin General Hospital, refused plaintiff’s
20
requests to provide him with “declot” treatment. After this denial, he was denied further treatment
21
for three weeks. Id.
22
Second, plaintiff alleges that his 1st Amendment rights were violated when
23
defendants retaliated against him for making grievances regarding their medical treatment and
24
reporting a patient murder to the “public health department.” See ECF No. 26, pgs. 9-13.
25
Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendants: Segriddy, Carman, Stacy, Denise, Irene, Kent,
26
Jamie, Foroutan, Min, Alex, Frank, and Butts conspired to place plaintiff in a hepatitis B isolation
27
room for commencing grievance procedures against them, as well as reporting the murder of a
28
patient. Id.
2
1
II. DISCUSSION
2
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3
A.
4
Causal Connection
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
5
connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See
6
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
7
person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of §
8
1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
9
an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
10
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
11
concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
12
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
13
specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
14
deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
15
Here, plaintiff alleges all the named defendants, generally, conspired to provide
16
him with sub-standard medical treatment and cause him harm. However, plaintiff’s factual
17
allegations are broad and vague. Plaintiff does not allege how any of the individual defendants’
18
personal conduct violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff simply lists off each defendant by
19
name and proceeds to broadly allege that they deprived him of adequate medical treatment
20
without explaining each individual’s specific role in the alleged wrong. Plaintiff does mention
21
that defendant Forountan refused plaintiff’s requests to provide him with “declot” treatment. See
22
ECF No. 26, pg. 7. While such an allegation is the sort of causal connection which may bring
23
about a cognizable claim, it by itself, does not pass § 1983 muster, as will be discussed in the
24
analysis of plaintiff’s 8th Amendment claim.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
2
B.
Supervisor Liability
As with plaintiff’s original complaint, the Court observes multiple defendants
3
named in the complaint hold supervisory positions. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable
4
under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
5
1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only
6
liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed
7
the violations. See id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant
8
can be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct
9
because government officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his
10
or her own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
11
(2009). Supervisory personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a
12
repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may,
13
however, be liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See
14
Redman v. Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
15
When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such
16
defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.
17
Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
18
1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in
19
civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
20
Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
21
official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.
22
Here, plaintiff appears to allege some of the defendants are liable as supervisory
23
personnel—asserting that as supervisors, these defendants are liable for the conduct of their
24
subordinates. This is a respondeat superior theory of liability, which is not cognizable under §
25
1983. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is advised that in
26
amending the complaint, he should be cognizant of the legal standard related to supervisory
27
liability, outlined above, and note that a supervisor can only be held liable for their own actions or
28
inactions resulting in the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, not the actions or inactions
4
1
2
3
of their subordinates.
C.
8th Amendment – Deliberate Indifference
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the
4
prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel
5
and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,
6
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts
7
of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102
8
(1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.
9
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with
10
“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,
11
801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when
12
two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such
13
that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)
14
subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of
15
inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison
16
official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.
17
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious
18
injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105;
19
see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health
20
needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by
21
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). An injury or illness is sufficiently serious if the failure to
22
treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the “. . . unnecessary and
23
wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled
24
on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see
25
also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). Factors indicating seriousness
26
are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition is worthy of comment; (2)
27
whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily activities; and (3) whether the
28
condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
5
1
2
1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases
3
than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with
4
medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,
5
974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to
6
decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.
7
1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See
8
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical
9
treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. See
10
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also demonstrate
11
that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
12
Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give
13
rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a
14
difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate
15
course of treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh,
16
90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
17
Here, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish an 8th Amendment
18
violation. Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an allegation that any defendant acted
19
unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm on plaintiff. Plaintiff does mention
20
that defendant Forountan refused plaintiff’s requests to provide him with “declot” treatment. See
21
ECF No. 26, pg. 7. However, there is no further explanation as to the context of this denial.
22
Plaintiff does not state why Forountan denied him treatment and does not allege that Forountan
23
withheld “declot” treatment in order to inflict harm on the plaintiff. If such a claim was made, it is
24
nowhere clear in the complaint.
25
Additionally, it appears plaintiff’s claim is, at least in part, based on a theory of
26
negligence. Because negligence in treating a medical condition does not give rise to an 8th
27
Amendment violation, any allegations related to alleged negligence fail to state a claim under §
28
1983. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Because plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to
6
1
establish an 8th Amendment claim, failed to link any defendant to any alleged misconduct, and
2
rooted his allegations in a theory of negligent medical treatment, plaintiff’s 8th Amendment claim
3
cannot pass screening.
4
Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint. He is advised to avoid using
5
vague and conclusory language of “deliberate indifference” to establish a claim. Specific factual
6
allegations of each defendant’s individual misconduct are required to establish a § 1983 claim.
7
8
9
D.
1st Amendment – Retaliation
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, the prisoner must
establish that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right, and that the retaliatory
10
action was not related to a legitimate penological purpose, such as preserving institutional
11
security. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In meeting
12
this standard, the prisoner must demonstrate a specific link between the alleged retaliation and the
13
exercise of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995);
14
Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner must also
15
show that the exercise of First Amendment rights was chilled, though not necessarily silenced, by
16
the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000), see also
17
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the prisoner plaintiff must
18
establish the following in order to state a claim for retaliation: (1) prison officials took adverse
19
action against the inmate; (2) the adverse action was taken because the inmate engaged in
20
protected conduct; (3) the adverse action chilled the inmate’s First Amendment rights; and (4) the
21
adverse action did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568.
22
As to the chilling effect, the Ninth Circuit in Rhodes observed: “If Rhodes had not
23
alleged a chilling effect, perhaps his allegations that he suffered harm would suffice, since harm
24
that is more than minimal will almost always have a chilling effect.” Id. at n.11. By way of
25
example, the court cited Pratt in which a retaliation claim had been decided without discussing
26
chilling. See id. This citation is somewhat confusing in that the court in Pratt had no reason to
27
discuss chilling because it concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the absence of legitimate
28
penological interests. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808-09. Nonetheless, while the court has clearly
7
1
stated that one of the “basic elements” of a First Amendment retaliation claim is that the adverse
2
action “chilled the inmates exercise of his First Amendment rights,” id. at 567-68, see also
3
Resnick, 213 F.3d at 449, the comment in Rhodes at footnote 11 suggests that adverse action
4
which is more than minimal satisfies this element. Thus, if this reading of Rhodes is correct, the
5
chilling effect element is essentially subsumed by adverse action.
6
Here, plaintiff claims that defendants: Segriddy, Carman, Stacy, Denise, Irene,
7
Kent, Jamie, Foroutan, Min, Alex, Frank, and Butts conspired to place plaintiff in a hepatitis B
8
isolation room for commencing grievance procedures against them, as well as reporting the
9
murder of a patient. See ECF No. 26, pgs. 12-13. As alleged, plaintiff properly claims he was
10
engaged in protected conduct, reporting both a murder and the misconduct of his medical care
11
professionals. Also, it seems clear defendants’ actions, if adverse, would have a chilling effect on
12
the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish a retaliation claim
13
under the 1st Amendment.
14
First, plaintiff does not provide any context for the alleged adverse action. It is not
15
clear what plaintiff means by the allegation that defendants “conspired” to place plaintiff in a
16
hepatitis B isolation room. See ECF No. 26, pg.12. There is no mention as to what any individual
17
defendant actually did to place the plaintiff in the room. Second, there is not factual context for
18
which placing defendant in isolation could be seen as “adverse.” Plaintiff does not state that he
19
did not require isolation, nor that the isolation was a pretext for some other nefarious purpose.
20
Third, plaintiff states no facts alleging that this action, if adverse, failed to serve some penological
21
purpose. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the 1st Amendment.
22
23
24
III. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
25
amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
26
action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
27
informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
28
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
8
1
amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
2
complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
3
plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
4
plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
5
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
6
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
7
conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
8
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
9
each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
10
between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
11
164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
12
Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
13
time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
14
1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
15
with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
16
See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
19
2.
Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date
20
of service of this order.
21
22
Dated: October 1, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
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?