Sekona v. Horowitz et al

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 5/15/2019 RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical Receiver, and C.C. Healthcare Services be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ETUATE SEKONA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-CV-2479-JAM-DMC-P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

E. HOROWITZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2018, this Court issued a screening order (ECF No. 14) finding

19

Petitioner pleaded sufficient facts for his claim against Defendant E. Horowitz to proceed past

20

screening and providing Plaintiff leave to amend as to his claims against the other named

21

Defendants. Plaintiff was informed if no amended complaint was filed the Court will issue

22

findings and recommendations that the defective claims be dismissed and separately order the

23

service of his complaint to Defendant E. Horowitz. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint,

24

as such this Court recommends Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical

25

Receiver, and C.C. Healthcare Services be dismissed. By separate order, the court will direct

26

plaintiff to submit documents necessary for service of process on defendant E. Horowitz.

27

///

28

///
1

1
2

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and

3

unusual punishment by denying him proper medical treatment and delaying further medical

4

treatment. Plaintiff’s claims seem to arise out of a series of injuries and medical conditions,

5

including a heart condition, stomach condition, and concussion. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to

6

frame two claims: (1) Plaintiff asserts Dr. E. Horowitz was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s

7

medical needs by discharging him from the hospital, placing him in a holding cell for four to five

8

hours, where Plaintiff had to lay on a concrete floor with a concussed head and without pain

9

killers or medical help. Plaintiff further contends that he had a seizure on July 4, 2014, and Dr.

10

Horowitz was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by directing the nurse to keep him in

11

his cell until Dr. Horowitz returned two days later. Further, Plaintiff charges that (2) Dr. E.

12

Horowitz denied him access to a cane or walker for three years and has declined to further treat

13

Plaintiff for the past three years. Plaintiff contends this delay and denial of treatment constitutes

14

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges no facts related to

15

Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical Receiver, or C.C. Healthcare Services.

16
17
18

II. ANALYSIS
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the

19

prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel

20

and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,

21

511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts

22

of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102

23

(1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.

24

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with

25

“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,

26

801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when

27

two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such

28

that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)
2

1

subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of

2

inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison

3

official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.

4

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious

5

injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105;

6

see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health

7

needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is

8

sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant

9

injury or the “. . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

10

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994).

11

Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition

12

is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily

13

activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See

14

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

15

The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases

16

than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with

17

medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,

18

974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to

19

decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.

20

1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See

21

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical

22

treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. See

23

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also demonstrate

24

that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

25

Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give

26

rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a

27

difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate

28

course of treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh,
3

1
2

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff alleges that each named defendant violated his Eighth Amendment right

3

against cruel and unusual punishment. However, there are no factual allegations that indicate

4

Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical Receiver, or C.C. Healthcare Services were involved in the

5

alleged violations. In fact, the only location in the complaint where these Defendants are

6

mentioned is in the caption on the first page. A plaintiff must plead that each government official

7

defendant through the official’s own individual actions, violated the constitution, and Plaintiff has

8

not done so here in relation to these three Defendants. For that reason, the claims in relation to

9

Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical Receiver, or C.C. Healthcare Services cannot proceed.

10

Though the complaint boarders on conclusory and contains limited factual assertions, this court

11

finds that there are sufficient facts in the complaint for Plaintiff’s claims related to Defendant Dr.

12

E. Horowitz to proceed past screening.

13
14

III. CONCLUSION

15

Base on the foregoing the undersigned recommends Plaintiffs claims against

16

Defendants Joe A. Lizarraga, Medical Receiver, and C.C. Healthcare Services be dismissed.

17

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

18

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

19

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

20

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

21

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

22

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23
24

Dated: May 15, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4