Williams v. Ortega et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Extension of Time to Object to Report and Recommendation; ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation; and ORDER Dismissing Claims Against Defendants Melgoza and Kimani. The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which Williams has made specific written objections, and overrules the objections. The Court finds the R&R to be correct, except that because Melgoza permitted Williams to ask the sergeant for medical help, it is obvio us he cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference. The R&R is deemed modified to include this change. So modified, the R&R is adopted. The Court grants in part the motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 26 .) All claims against Melgoza are dismissed w ith prejudice and Melgoza is dismissed as a party. Claims against Kimani for falsifying medical records are also dismissed with prejudice. Claims against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are dismissed without prejudice. If Williams believes he can successfully amend to state a claim against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, he may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date this order is issued. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/4/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt) Modified on 11/5/2019 to correct filing date. NEF regenerated (jdt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LANCE WILLIAMS,
CDCR #AG-2394,
vs.

14

16

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
OF TIME TO OBJECT TO REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION;

Plaintiff,

13

15

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD

O. ORTEGA, et al.,

ORDER OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND

Defendants.

17
18

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
MELGOZA AND KIMANI

19
20
21
22

Lance Williams, a prisoner incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

23

in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action bringing

24

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams brought Eighth Amendment claims against

25

Defendants J. Melgoza and M. Kimani, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

26

following an altercation with another prison officer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

27

Local Civil Rule 72.1(c), the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin who

28

on September 9 issued his report and recommendation (the “R&R”). Williams sought an
1
3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD

1

extension of time to file objections to the R&R, but before the Court ruled on his motion,

2

he filed his objections.

3

Williams’ motion for extension of time to file objections (Docket no. 30) is

4

GRANTED, and his objections are accepted as filed.

5

Legal Standards

6

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and

7

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

8

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

9

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

10

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

11

This section does not require some lesser review by the district court when no objections

12

are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the

13

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

14

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

15

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

16

The R&R correctly sets forth the standard for motions to dismiss, which the Court

17

ADOPTS. Although Williams in his opposition to the motion to dismiss alleged some new

18

facts, the R&R correctly points out that these should not be considered when deciding

19

whether the complaint states a claim. While the Court can consider additional allegations

20

made in the briefing when deciding whether to grant leave to amend, when ruling on a

21

motion to dismiss the Court considers only facts alleged in the complaint. See Cervantes v.

22

City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993).

23

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent

24

to a prisoner’s serious medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).To

25

plead a deliberate indifference claim under the Eight Amendment, a plaintiff must plead

26

facts showing that the defendants were deliberately indifferent, not merely negligent, and

27

that his medical needs were serious. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976).

28

Serious medical needs include those that could result in further significant injury if
2
3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD

1

untreated, or in the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

2

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.) Serious medical needs include

3

injuries that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of treatment,

4

medical conditions that significantly affect the prisoner’s daily activities, or the existence

5

of chronic and substantial pain. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).

6

Discussion

7

Williams filed this action about a week after the incident that gave rise to it. In his

8

opposition to the motion to dismiss, he for the first time refers to other events that had not

9

happened at the time he filed suit, and alleges facts the complaint does not mention. As

10

noted, the Court considers only allegations in the complaint when determining whether the

11

complaint states a claim.

12

Williams’ claims against Kimani include a charge that Kimani falsified Williams’

13

medical records to make his injury seem less serious. Williams argues that falsifying

14

medical records violates California Penal Code sections 132 and 134. The R&R correctly

15

points out that these sections are not privately actionable. Furthermore, the falsification of

16

medical records, by itself, does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim.

17

According to the complaint, another officer assaulted Williams, resulting in a

18

cut or bloody nose, a bruised and cut wrist, throbbing pain in his body, and inability to

19

move his ring finger. (Compl. at 5(b).) Williams first showed his injuries to numerous

20

other inmates then asked Melgoza to summon medical help. (Id. at 5.) Melgoza allegedly

21

refused to call for medical help himself, but told Williams to see the sergeant about it and

22

let him out of the building so he could do that. (Id.) Later Kimani, a nurse, examined

23

Williams. He alleges that she failed to check for bruises, failed to do a mental health check,

24

and failed to call for medical help.

25

In his opposition, Williams alleges new and inconsistent facts, suggesting that the

26

blood was not dry, but still dripping from his wrist when Kimani examined him. He alleges

27

that the seriousness of his injuries would have been obvious to a nurse such as Kimani. He

28

also alleges injury to his finger that later required cortisone injections and surgery. But he
3
3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD

1

does not allege any facts suggesting that immediate medical attention to his finger was

2

necessary or would have helped.

3

According to the pleadings, neither Melgoza nor Kimani was indifferent to

4

Williams’ serious medical needs, both because the needs were not serious for purposes of

5

Eighth Amendment analysis, and because neither of them was indifferent. Melgoza did

6

not call for medical help, but did allow Williams to talk to the sergeant about his medical

7

needs, which resulted in Williams being seen by a nurse, Kimani.

8

For her part, Kimani examined Williams and inquired about the cause of his injuries.

9

Although he alleges she should have examined him for bruises, at least some parts of his

10

body (his forehead and neck) that he said were throbbing in pain were visible to her.

11

Objectively, the injuries were not serious for Eighth Amendment purposes. Besides the

12

pain, he says he “showed her my bruised, cut wrist mainly on top and fresh dried blood all

13

over my wrist and the cut in my nose.” (Compl. at 5(b).) And, as the R&R correctly points

14

out, before seeking medical help, Williams first walked around, showing his injuries to

15

other prisoners.

16

When considering similar injuries, both district courts and the Ninth Circuit have

17

held they did not amount to a “serious medical need” within the meaning of the Eight

18

Amendment. In Pratt v. Minnix, 2012 WL 359658 (D. Nev., Feb. 2, 2012), a prisoner

19

alleged that a prison officer assaulted him. The plaintiff there suffered a swollen eye, a

20

bloody nose, and abrasions and bruises on his face and back. Id. at *7. The district court

21

held that these injuries were “not so serious to require further prompt treatment,” and

22

dismissed the deliberate indifference claim. Id. at *8. The Ninth Circuit agreed, calling

23

the injuries “minor.” 538 Fed. Appx. 771, 772 (9th Cir. 2012).

24

In Campbell v. Portillo, 2012 WL 6561271, at 10 (D. Nev., Oct. 16, 2012), a prisoner

25

involved in an altercation with an officer suffered a bloody nose and a red mark on his

26

clavicle, and vomited. Depriving the plaintiff of immediate treatment for these, the district

27

court found, did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Id.; see also Campbell v. Portillo, 609

28

Fed. Appx. 439, 439 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of deliberate indifference claim).
4
3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD

1

Conclusion and Order

2

The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the R&R to which Williams has

3

made specific written objections, and OVERRULES the objections. The Court finds the

4

R&R to be correct, except that because Melgoza permitted Williams to ask the sergeant for

5

medical help, it is obvious he cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference. The R&R

6

is deemed modified to include this change. So modified, the R&R is ADOPTED. The

7

Court GRANTS in part the motion to dismiss. (Docket no. 26.) All claims against Melgoza

8

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Melgoza is DISMISSED as a party. Claims

9

against Kimani for falsifying medical records are also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

10

Claims against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are

11

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Williams believes he can successfully amend

12

to state a claim against Kimani for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, he may

13

file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date this order is issued. Any necessary

14

amendments are likely to be mainly factual in nature, and Williams is familiar with his own

15

medical history. Therefore, it is unlikely he would be given additional time to conduct legal

16

research.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: November 4, 2019
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
Chief United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3:18-cv-00547-LAB-MDD