Fortanel v. Ducart et al

Filing 44

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. 43 MOTION to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/15/18. (Certificate of Service Attached) (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LIBRADO FORTANEL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-03946-PJH
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 43
C. E. DUCART, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

14

U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the

15

complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave

16

to amend and he has filed a second amended complaint.
DISCUSSION

17
18

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

20

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

21

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

22

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

23

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

24

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

25

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

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

27

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

28

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)

2

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed

3

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]

4

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

5

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

6

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

7

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state

8

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme

9

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal

10

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their

12

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

15

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

16

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

17

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18

LEGAL CLAIMS

19

Plaintiff states that he has received inadequate medical care.

20

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s

21

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

22

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

23

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en

24

banc). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two

25

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

26

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.

27

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could

28

result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id.
2

1

The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and

2

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly

3

affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are

4

examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at

5

1059-60.

6

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

7

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable

8

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must

9

not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the

12

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290

13

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

14

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”

15

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

In the original complaint plaintiff alleged that he suffered from coccidioidomycosis,

17

also known as valley fever. He identified nine defendants and stated they failed to

18

properly treat him while at Pelican Bay State Prison. The court granted defendants’

19

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim noting that plaintiff failed to link the

20

defendants with specific actions or specific failures to treat him. The court noted that

21

plaintiff only provided bare and conclusory allegations that defendants did not provide

22

treatment, and there were no allegations against several of the defendants. The court

23

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and discussed the best manner to file an

24

amended complaint and reminded plaintiff that he must include all claims, defendants

25

and allegations in the amended complaint. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was only

26

three pages long and failed to provide sufficient information and was dismissed with

27

leave to amend.

28

Plaintiff’s instant second amended complaint while longer and presenting more
3

alle
egations an factual background still fails to state claim While pl
nd
b
o
m.
laintiff ment
tions

2

deliberate ind
difference he mostly fo
ocuses on m
medical neg
gligence and alleges th
hat

3

fendants br
reached the duty of care. While plaintiff pr
eir
c
e
resents alle
egations against each
def

4

def
fendant, ev liberally construed, plaintiff fa to prese a cogniz
ven
y
ails
ent
zable claim of
m

5

deliberate ind
difference. While plain had ser
ntiff
rious medic needs a review of h various
cal
his

6

filin and exhibits demo
ngs
onstrates th he receiived extens
hat
sive medica care but h
al
he

7

dis
sagrees with the treatm
ment provid which fa to state a constitutional violat
ded
ails
e
tion.

8

Pla
aintiff also concedes th the sym
c
hat
mptoms beg to subside. He co
gan
ontends that he
t

9

suf
ffered adve
erse effects of the valle fever but has failed to show th this was because
ey
t
d
hat
s

10

of any lack of treatment on behalf of defendan that wou rise to th high standard for
f
o
nts
uld
he

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

deliberate ind
difference claims. While plaintiff b
became ast
thmatic he was provid an
ded

12

inh
haler and st is now considering a steroid inhaler. Be
taff
c
g
ecause plain has alr
ntiff
ready been

13

pro
ovided seve opportu
eral
unities to am
mend and h still faile to demo
has
ed
onstrate a

14

constitutional violation and further amendment would be futile, this a
a
t
action is dis
smissed

15

wit
thout leave to amend.
CONCLU
USION

16
17

1. The motion to file a secon amende complain (Docket N 43) is G
e
nd
ed
nt
No.
GRANTED

18

and the court has consid
dered the fil
ling. For th reasons set forth ab
he
bove this ac
ction is

19

SMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
w
DIS

20

2. The clerk shall close this case.
e

21

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

22

Da
ated: June 15, 2018
1

23
24
25
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

26
27
28
4

1
2

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

4
5

LI
IBRADO FO
ORTANEL,

Case No. 1
16-cv-03946
6-PJH

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

C. E. DUCAR et al.,
RT,
s.
Defendants

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.

12
13
14
15
16

That on June 15, 20 I SERV
n
018,
VED a true an correct co
nd
opy(ies) of t attached, by placing
the
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

17
18
19

brado Fortan ID: J-54101
nel
Lib
De Vocation Institutio
euel
nal
on
P.O Box 600, Cell D-227
O.
Tra CA 95378-0600
acy,

20
21
22

Da
ated: June 15 2018
5,

23
24

usan Y. Soon
ng
Su
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

25
26
27
28

By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
5