Coles v. Ma et al
Filing
14
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/13/18 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Assigned and 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
JAMEEL R. COLES,
12
No. 2:17-cv-2234 CKD P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
JIAN MA, et al.,
15
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
17
18
1983. On November 8, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to
19
do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has
20
now filed an amended complaint.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
22
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
23
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if, among other things, the prisoner has raised
24
claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
25
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court
26
must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-4 (2007), and construe the
27
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
28
(1974).
1
In the court’s November 8, 2017 order dismissing his complaint, plaintiff was informed as
1
2
follows concerning the contents of any amended complaint:
3
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must
demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a
deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,
625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff complains about medical
care. Denial or delay of medical care may constitute a violation of
the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation
only when injury results from deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s
serious medical needs. Id. A difference of opinion about the
proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does a
dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity
for or extent of medical treatment amount to a constitutional
violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th
Cir. 2004). Furthermore, mere delay of medical treatment, “without
more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical
indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766
F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). Where a prisoner alleges that delay
of medical treatment is deliberate indifference, the prisoner must
show that the delay caused “significant harm and that Defendants
should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296
F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
After screening plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court finds that it too fails to state a
15
claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff complains that the medical treatment he has
16
received for pain in his right knee has not been adequate. As indicated above, in order to state a
17
claim under the Eighth Amendment for cruel and unusual punishment with respect to medical
18
care, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating at least deliberate indifference to a serious medical
19
need. The facts alleged do not establish indifference as it is clear from plaintiff’s exhibits that
20
plaintiff has been seen by doctors a number of times with respect to his knee and has received
21
advice and treatment. See ECF No. 13 at 14-41. Most notably, defendant Dr. Ma referred
22
plaintiff for a consultation with an orthopedic surgeon (ECF No. 13 at 15) which occurred on
23
June 13, 2017 (ECF No. 13 at 21-22). At the advice of the orthopedic surgeon, defendant Ma
24
recommended on June 21, 2017 that an MRI of plaintiff’s knee be taken. ECF No. 13 at 18. That
25
request was approved. ECF No. 13 at 34. Plaintiff is not satisfied with the treatment he has
26
received as he still has pain in his knee. But he does not suggest what treatment he should
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
receive. Also, plaintiff does not point to anything suggesting any of defendant’s treatment was
2
incorrect or even negligent1 let alone amounting to indifference.
For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not include facts suggesting he has
3
4
been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Considering the advice given to plaintiff
5
following the dismissal of his original complaint and considering that in his amended complaint
6
plaintiff still does not allege facts amounting to a claim upon which plaintiff may proceed,
7
granting plaintiff leave to amend a second time appears futile.
8
9
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court
assign a district court judge to this case; and
10
11
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
12
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
15
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and
16
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
17
may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
18
Cir. 1991).
19
Dated: March 13, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
cole2234.frs
26
27
28
1
If plaintiff can allege facts suggesting any defendant was or is being negligent with respect to
their treatment of plaintiff’s knee, plaintiff may have a cause of action arising under California
law which he could pursue in a California court.
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?