Randle v. Illa

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 11/1/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

12

No. 2:18-CV-0411-JAM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ROBERT ILLA,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

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 complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

20

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

22

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

23

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

24

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

25

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This

26

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

27

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

28

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
1

1

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

2

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

3

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

4

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

5

and conclusory.

6
7
8
9

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff names Robert Illa, a doctor at California State Prison – Sacramento, as
defendant. Plaintiff alleges he suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and has been prescribed

10

methotrexate, Enbrel, sulfasalazine, and plaquenil for the condition. According to plaintiff, on

11

April 24, 2017, he informed a nurse he was experiencing pain in his joints, legs, and lower back.

12

See Doc. 1, p. 5. Plaintiff states he was told by the nurse she would “get me seen by the doctor.”

13

Id. Plaintiff was later seen by defendant Illa who, according to plaintiff, conducted a brief

14

examination and said: “I don’t see rheumatoid arthritis. . . .” Id. When plaintiff told defendant

15

Illa that he was experiencing pain in his joints, legs, and lower back and that the pain was making

16

it difficult for him to move around, defendant Illa allegedly told plaintiff he would have to ask his

17

primary care doctor. See id. Plaintiff next states he noticed his rheumatoid arthritis medications

18

were missing from his “morning medication.” Id. According to plaintiff, he was told by the

19

nurse the medications had been discontinued. See id.

20
21
22

II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff claims defendant Illa was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

23

needs by discontinuing his rheumatoid arthritis pain medications. The treatment a prisoner

24

receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny

25

under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v.

26

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth

27

Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards,

28

humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). Conditions of confinement
2

1

may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).

2

Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation,

3

medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986).

4

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1)

5

objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of the

6

minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must have

7

acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at

8

834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable

9

mind.” See id.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. See
3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

8
9

In this case, plaintiff does not directly allege defendant Illa is responsible for
discontinuation of his rheumatoid arthritis pain medications. Assuming, however, it is reasonable

10

to infer defendant is responsible for discontinuation of plaintiff’s medications, the court finds

11

plaintiff’s complaint states, at most, a difference of opinion regarding appropriate medications or

12

a claim based on professional negligence. According to plaintiff, while defendant’s examination

13

of him was brief, he was nonetheless examined. Thus, the facts alleged by plaintiff do not show

14

defendant Illa was indifferent to plaintiff’s complaints of pain. Rather, the facts alleged show that

15

defendant Illa responded to plaintiff’s complaints, examined him, and advised him to consult his

16

primary care physician for further treatment. To the extent plaintiff disagrees with this decision,

17

he cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim. Nor can plaintiff state a cognizable claim to the

18

extent plaintiff asserts defendant Illa was negligent in providing treatment.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1
2

III. CONCLUSION
Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

3

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

4

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

5
6

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
for failure to state a claim.

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14
15

Dated: November 1, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5