Hall v. Beatty et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh on 2/8/2016. CDCR is dismissed with prejudice. (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016)

2
3

FILED

4

FEB 09 2016

5

SUSAN Y. SOONG
Cli!!P1~1 l.J.$. OISTRICT COUPT
NOATHIEAN OISTRICT OF CAlli:ORNIA
SANJOSE
'

6

7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

NATHAN HALL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

DR. BEAITY, et al.,

15

No. C 15-4147 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
__________________________)

16
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, filed this civil rights action under
17
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
18
For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the claim against the California Department of
19
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") with prejudice, and dismisses the remainder of the
20
complaint with leave to amend.
21
DISCUSSION

22
A.

Standard of Review

23
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
24
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
25
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

26
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
27
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Halll47dwla.wpd

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
2

Pacifica Police Dep 't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,48 (1988).

7

B.

8
9

Legal Claims
In 2007, plaintiff was given a lower bunk chrono because he was diagnosed with a

chronic knee condition in his right knee. On August 29, 2012, plaintiff arrived at San Quentin

10

State Prison. Plaintiff saw defendant Dr. Espinoza to request a lower bunk chrono, but she

11

repeatedly denied his request. Dr. Espinoza ordered a knee brace for his right knee instead, as an

12

alternative. At some point, defendant Dr. Beatty began treating plaintiff. Plaintiff requested a

13

lower bunk chrono from Dr. Beatty because plaintiff's right knee was swelling. Dr. Beatty

14

denied the request, and prescribed a knee brace for plaintiff instead.

15

On February 25, 2015, plaintiff applied for a reasonable accommodation in the form of a

16

lower bunk chrono. The following day, plaintiffwas granted a temporary lower bunk chrono,

17

pending a medical evaluation. On March 15, 2015, the reasonable accommodation panel denied

18

plaintiffs request for a lower bunk chrono. On April21, 2015, plaintiffhad an MRI for his right

19

knee. The MRI revealed that plaintiff suffered from an old partial anterior crucial ligament

20

("ACL") tear. (Compl., Appendix A.) Plaintiff's primary care provider remarked that plaintiffs

21

knee was not unstable, and that plaintiffs knee pain appeared to be attributable to the partial

22

ACL tear. At some point later, plaintiff was granted a lower bunk chrono, as well as ground

23

floor cell accommodations. (!d.)

24

Plaintiff states that, since September 2012, he has been forced to get up and down from

25

his upper bunk without the use of a footstool, and has had to instead, use the toilet or sink to step

26

up to his bunk. When he has done so, he has sometimes fallen or slipped, causing pain and more

27

swelling in his knee. Plaintiff alleges that defendant California Department of Corrections and

28

Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has failed to provide a footstool to prevent slipping and falling.
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Hall147dwla.wpd

2

1

Plaintiff also alleges that, had Drs. Espinoza or Beatty provided plaintiff earlier with a

2

lower bunk chrono, it would have prevented plaintiffs ACL tear, and prevented plaintiff from

3

enduring prolonged pain and suffering from August 20 I2 through May 20 I5. Plaintiff also

4

claims that both Drs. Espinoza and Beatty denied plaintiff orthopedic shoes that could have

5

helped plaintiff balance himselfwhile getting in and out of the upper bunk.

6

Plaintiffs claim against the CDCR must be dismissed. The Eleventh Amendment bars

7

from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or

8

citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234,

9

237-38 (1985). Unless a state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has

I0

overridden it, a state cannot be sued regardless of the relief sought. See Kentucky v. Graham,

11

473 U.S. 159, I67 n.l4 (1985) (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 78I (1978)). The waiver must

I2

be unequivocally expressed. See Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, I658 (2011). This

13

Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state agency. See, e.g., Brown v.

14

Cal. Dep 't ofCorrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections

15

and California Board of Prison Terms are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). Because

16

there is no indication that the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, or that

17

Congress has overridden it, plaintiffs claim against the CDCR is dismissed with prejudice.

I8

As for the remaining claim, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the

19

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble,

20

429 U.S. 97, I04 (I976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d I050, I059 (9th Cir. I992), overruled on

2I

other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, I 04 F .3d I133, I136 (9th Cir. I997) (en

22

bane). A determination of"deliberate indifference" involves an examination oftwo elements:

23

the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that

24

need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at I059. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows

25

that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

26

reasonable steps to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 5II U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison

27

official must not only "be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

28

substantial risk of serious harm exists," but he "must also draw the inference." !d. If a prison
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR. I 5\Hall I 4 7dwla. wpd

3

1

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

2

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d

3

1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

4

Here, liberally construed, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that either Dr. Espinoza or

5

Dr. Beatty knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm without a lower bunk

6

chrono, and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it. Plaintiff alleges that, as an alternative to

7

recommending a lower bunk chrono, both Drs. Espinoza and Beatty offered plaintiff a knee

8

brace. There is no reasonable inference from the facts presented that either doctor did this

9

knowing that such an alternative was unreasonable. It is well-established that "[a] difference of

10

opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not

11

give rise to a§ 1983 claim." Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In

12

addition, there are no facts to support plaintiffs claim that Drs. Espinoza and Beatty's denial of

13

orthopedic shoes demonstrated a deliberate indifference to plaintiffs serious medical needs.

14

If plaintiff can do so in good faith, plaintiff may amend his complaint to allege that

15

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, plaintiff must

16

allege facts showing that defendants' actions both actually and proximately caused the

17

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation,

18

726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff must state facts sufficient to lead to a reasonable

19

inference that defendants knew plaintiff faced a serious risk of substantial harm without a lower

20

bunk chrono, and failed to take reasonable steps to abate this harm. Even at the pleading stage,

21

"[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

22

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Barren v. Harrington, 152 F .3d 1193,

23

1194 (9th Cir. 1998). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

24

speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56 (2007) (citations

25

omitted).

CONCLUSION

26
27

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows:

28

I.

Plaintiffs claim against the CDCR is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.15\Hall14 7dw Ia. wpd

4

1
2

complaint is otherwise DISMISSED with leave to amend.
2.

If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file an

3

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

4

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 15-414 7 LHK

5

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must

6

indicate which specific, named defendant(s) was involved in each cause of action, what each

7

defendant did, what effect this had on plaintiff and what right plaintiff alleges was violated.

8

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. If plaintiff files an

9

amended complaint, he must allege, in good faith, facts - not merely conclusions of law - that

10

demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under the applicable federal statutes. Failure to file an

11

amended complaint within thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a

12

finding that further leave to amend would be futile, and this action will be dismissed.

13

3.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

14

"[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

15

in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

17

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

4.

It is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

19

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed "Notice

20

of Change of Address," and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

21

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 41 (b).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

2.-jz,l UJ /b
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l5\Hall147dwla. wpd

5