Hall v. Guila et al
Filing
35
ORDER Dismissing Fourth Amended Complaint for Failing to State a Claim Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint 30 is Dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Further leave to amend is Denied. The Court certifies that an IFP appeal from this Order of dismissal would not be taken 'in good faith' pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/20/2014.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(vam)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
LAVELL HALL,
CDCR #H-05584,
Civil
No.
13
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
14
15
16
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
vs.
Y.A. GUILA, et al.
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
I.
21
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
22
On November 14, 2011, Lavell Hall, a state inmate currently incarcerated at
23
California State Prison, Los Angeles County located in Lancaster, California,
24
submitted a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not seek leave to
25
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this matter but rather Plaintiff has paid the entire
26
$350 civil filing fee.
27
28
On March 9, 2012, this Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for
failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). [Doc. No. 5.] Plaintiff was
1
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of
2
pleading identified by the Court. [Doc. No. 5 at 5-6.] On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff
3
filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint.” [Doc. No. 6.]
4
However, before the Court could issue a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff filed
5
his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 7.]
6
On May 24, 2012, the Court, once again, dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended
7
Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). [Doc. No. 9.]
8
Plaintiff was again granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the
9
deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. [Id. at 5.] After receiving extensions
10
of time, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). [Doc. No. 15.] This
11
Court dismissed all claims against Defendant Guila and transferred the matter to the
12
Eastern District of California in light of the fact all remaining claims were unrelated to
13
the claims that arose in this District. [Doc. No. 19].
14
After the matter was transferred to the Eastern District of California, Plaintiff
15
was permitted to file a Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. [Doc. Nos. 26, 30.]
16
On August 5, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an
17
“Order Dismissing Action without Prejudice” and transferred the matter back to this
18
District. [Doc. No. 32.]
19
II.
20
SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
21
As the Court informed Plaintiff in its previous Orders, the Prison Litigation
22
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to review complaints
23
filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, sentenced
24
for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions
25
of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable
26
after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to
27
proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss
28
prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to
2
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v.
2
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).
3
A.
4
Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1)
5
that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2)
6
that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected
7
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v.
8
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams,
9
474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985)
10
Constitutional Claims
(en banc).
11
B.
Waiver of Claims against Defendants
12
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff no longer names Defendants
13
Clark, Mecias, Kirby, Tkieby, Walker, Rouch, McCabe, Wauem, Wager Vo, Quang,
14
Thornhill, Ko or Fraze in his Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”). As this Court
15
informed Plaintiff in its previous Orders, “[d]efendants not named and all claims not
16
re-alleged in [amended pleadings] will be deemed to have been waived.” See May 24,
17
2012 Order at 5, Doc. No. 9, citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
18
Accordingly, because Plaintiff no longer names these individuals as Defendants, all
19
claims against them are waived.
20
B.
Claims against Defendants Peterson and Chamberlain
21
Where an inmate’s claim is one of inadequate medical care, the inmate must
22
allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
23
serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Such a claim
24
has two elements: “the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the
25
defendant’s response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.
26
1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,
27
1136 (9th Cir. 1997). A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the prisoner’s
28
condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton
3
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
infliction of pain.’” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104).
2
Indications of a serious medical need include “the presence of a medical condition that
3
significantly affects an individual’s daily activities.” Id. at 1059-60. By establishing
4
the existence of a serious medical need, an inmate satisfies the objective requirement
5
for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
6
(1994).
7
In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny,
8
delay, or intentionally interfere with a prescribed course of medical treatment, or it
9
may be shown by the way in which prison medical officials provide necessary care.
10
Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). While Plaintiff’s
11
Fourth Amended Complaint is nearly devoid of specific factual allegations, Plaintiff
12
attaches several documents to his Fourth Amended Complaint that demonstrate he
13
was examined and treated by Dr. Peterson on a number of occasions. It further
14
demonstrates that Dr. Peterson prescribed Plaintiff medication for his condition that
15
Plaintiff received. In his a Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Dr.
16
Peterson’s “treatments failed to rectify the problem.” (FAC at 6.) Before it can be
17
said that an inmate’s civil rights have been abridged with regard to medical care,
18
however, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere
19
‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of
20
action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing
21
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th
22
Cir. 2004).
23
The Court previously found that these identical allegations failed to state a
24
claim against Defendant Peterson and Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies of
25
pleading previously identified by this Court. Moreover, the Fourth Amended
26
Complaint, while referencing Defendant Chamberlain, fails to identify any specific
27
factual allegations pertaining to this Defendant and there are no documents attached to
28
the Fourth Amended Complaint that identify Defendant Chamberlain’s role in the
4
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, for all the reasons
2
previously stated by the Court in its prior Orders, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
3
failed to state a claim against either of these defendants.
4
B.
Claims against Defendant Guila
5
Plaintiff also fails to identify with any specificity the factual allegations giving
6
rise to his claims against Defendant Guila. Moreover, this Court previously found the
7
allegations against Defendant Guila deficient and did not permit Plaintiff leave to
8
amend his pleading as to this Defendant. (See March 13, 2013 Order, Doc. No. 19, at
9
4.) Regardless, it is clear that Plaintiff continues to fail to state a claim against this
10
11
Defendant.
While not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Guila
12
liable for the alleged responses to Plaintiff’s administrative grievances. The
13
Fourteenth Amendment provides that: “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life,
14
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. “The
15
requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests
16
encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property.”
17
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). State statutes and prison
18
regulations may grant prisoners liberty or property interests sufficient to invoke due
19
process protection. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). To state a
20
procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) a liberty or property interest
21
protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government;
22
[and] (3) lack of process.” Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000).
23
24
However, the Ninth Circuit has held that prisoners have no protected property
25
interest in an inmate grievance procedure arising directly from the Due Process
26
Clause. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 869 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a
27
separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”) (citing
28
Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that the due process clause
5
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
of the Fourteenth Amendment creates “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison]
2
grievance procedure”)); accord Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (1995);
3
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).
4
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show that prison
5
official deprived him of a protected liberty interest by allegedly failing to respond to
6
his prison grievances in a satisfactory manner. While a liberty interest can arise from
7
state law or prison regulations, Meachum, 427 U.S. at 223-27, due process protections
8
are implicated only if Plaintiff alleges facts to show that Defendants: (1) restrained
9
his freedom in a manner not expected from his sentence, and (2) “impose[d] atypical
10
and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
11
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827-28
12
(9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff pleads nothing to suggest how the allegedly inadequate
13
review and consideration of his inmate grievances resulted in an “atypical” and
14
“significant hardship.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff
15
challenges the procedural adequacy of inmate grievance procedures, his Fourth
16
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim as to Defendant Guila.
17
III.
18
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
19
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
20
1.
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 30] is DISMISSED for
21
failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 1915A(b)(1).
23
2.
Further leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
24
80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of
25
discretion where further amendment would be futile); and
26
3.
The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order of dismissal
27
would not be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge
28
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th
6
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
1
Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal
2
would not be frivolous).
3
The Clerk shall close the file.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
DATED: August 20, 2014
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
14cv1846 MMA (JLB)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?