Inman v. Spearman et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF SERVICE: The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, and a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order upon the following defendants - Dr. Darrin Bright (chief m edical officer at CTF-Soledad), Dr. A. Adams (chief medical executive at CTF-Soledad), L.D. Zamora (chief of inmate appeals at CDCR in Sacramento). Defendants' motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion is due 1/22/16, plaintiff's opposition is due 2/19/15,defendants' optional reply brief is due 3/3/16. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/30/2015) Modified on 10/30/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RONALD JERRELL INMAN,

Case No. 15-cv-01767-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF SERVICE

9
10

DARRIN BRIGHT, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

Ronald Jerrell Inman filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

15

complain about conditions of confinement at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (“CTF-

16

Soledad”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court reviewed the complaint and dismissed it with

17

leave to amend because Inman had not linked any defendant to his claim. Inman then filed an

18

amended complaint, which is now before the court for review. The amended complaint will be

19

served on four defendants.

20
BACKGROUND

21
22

In his amended complaint, Inman alleges that he has an allergy to “fresh and freshly

23

cooked onions,” and becomes sick when he consumes foods containing fresh and freshly cooked

24

onions.

25

onion-free diet so that he will not be sickened by eating onions, even though they provide special

26

diets for inmates with other food allergies. He further alleges that defendants Dr. Bright, Dr.

27

Adams and L. D. Zamora are responsible for his predicament because they have denied his inmate

28

appeals. See Dkt. No. 5 at 5, Dkt. No. 5-1 at 17-18 (second level appeal response signed by Dr.

Dkt. No. 5 at 3. He further alleges that prison officials refuse to provide him with an

1

Bright and Dr. Adams); Dkt. No. 5-1 at 19-20 (director’s level appeal response signed by L.

2

Zamora).

3
DISCUSSION

4
5

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

6

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

7

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any

8

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

9

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

See id. at §

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a

13

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

14

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

15

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause requires that prison

17

officials provide for the health and safety of prisoners. A prison official violates the Eighth

18

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively,

19

sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s

20

health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference to serious

21

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment.

22

Deprivations other than denial of medical care also may establish the objective prong of an Eighth

23

Amendment claim. The “deprivation is sufficiently serious when the prison official’s act or

24

omission results in the denial of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.” Foster v.

25

Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 913 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The

26

deprivation of adequate food may be a sufficiently serious condition to establish the objective

27

prong of an Eighth Amendment claim.

28

aesthetically pleasing,’ it must be ‘adequate to maintain health.’” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083,

See id.

2

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104.

“While prison food need not be ‘tasty or

1

1091 (9th Cir. 1996). Liberally construed, the pro se amended complaint states a cognizable claim

2

against Dr. Bright, Dr. Adams, and L.D. Zamora for a violation of Inman’s rights under the Eighth

3

Amendment. These defendants allegedly are responsible for the denial of his request for a diet

4

without fresh and freshly cooked onions.
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall

6

'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a

7

direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne

8

Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)).

9

Liberally construed, the pro se amended complaint states a cognizable claim against Dr. Bright,

10

Dr. Adams, and L.D. Zamora for an equal protection violation because they allegedly have denied

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

him a diet that will not make him sick whereas other inmates with food allergies receive diets that

12

avoid those allergies.

13

There is no federal constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance

14

system for California inmates. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v.

15

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.

16

1996) (prison grievance procedure is procedural right that does not give rise to protected liberty

17

interest requiring procedural protections of Due Process Clause); Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987,

18

989 (9th Cir. 1993). Prison officials are not liable for a due process violation for simply failing to

19

process an appeal properly, denying an inmate appeal or granting an inmate appeal. A § 1983

20

claim for a due process violation is not stated against any defendant.

21

Although defendants have no due process liability, their responses to Inman’s inmate

22

appeals may be the basis for liability for an ongoing Eighth Amendment violation or an ongoing

23

equal protection violation. For example, if a defendant only denied an inmate appeal about a

24

medical problem that already had occurred and been resolved, there would be no liability for a

25

constitutional violation; however, where the problem is an ongoing medical need and the request

26

is made in an inmate appeal to remedy the ongoing problem, liability can be based on the denial of

27

an inmate appeal, just as it could be based on the denial of a verbal request from the inmate. Cf.

28

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate
3

1

indifference to a serious medical need, for instance, if he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s

2

request for help). Here, Inman indicates an ongoing problem in that he has an ongoing need for a

3

diet that addresses his allergy to fresh and freshly cooked onions.

4
CONCLUSION

5
6

1.

Liberally construed, the complaint states cognizable § 1983 claims against Dr.

7

Darrin Bright, Dr. A. Adams, and L.D. Zamora for Eighth Amendment and equal protection

8

violations. All other claims and defendants are dismissed.

9

2.

The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, and a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order upon the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

following defendants:

12

- Dr. Darrin Bright (chief medical officer at CTF-Soledad)
- Dr. A. Adams (chief medical executive at CTF-Soledad)
- L.D. Zamora (chief of inmate appeals at CDCR in Sacramento)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3.

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:
a.

No later than January 22, 2016, defendants must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case
cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform the court prior to the date
the motion is due. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment, defendants must provide to
plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a
motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012).
b.

Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than February 19, 2016.
Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in
this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment.
c.

If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than March 3, 2016.

28
4

1
2
3

Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for

motions for summary judgment:

12

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have
your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. . . . Rule 56 tells you what you must do
in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must
be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real
dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for
summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.
When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly
supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your
complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that
contradict the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show that
there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence
in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary
judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v.
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).

13

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

14

he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a

15

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the

16

plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4.

17

5.

All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

18

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

19

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

20

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to defendant,

21

but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather

22

than directly to that defendant.

23

6.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required

25

before the parties may conduct discovery.

26

7.

Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

27

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

28

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
5

1

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every

2

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

3
4
5
6
7
8

8.

Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6