(PC) Taylor v. Lewis ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE TAYLOR, No. 2:18-CV-0149-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LEWIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 12). 19 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual 20 punishment by denying him proper medical treatment and by failing to provide him adequate pain 21 management medication. 22 23 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 27 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 28 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a “…short and 2 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See McHenry v. 3 Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)). Detailed factual 4 allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 5 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 6 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s 7 allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. 8 Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 9 omitted). 10 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their 11 pleadings liberally construed and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 12 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 13 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 14 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation 15 marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The 16 sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with 17 liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 18 omitted); Moss, 572F.3d at 969. 19 20 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 21 Plaintiff names ten Defendants including Does 1-5. The named Defendants are: 22 (1) J. Lewis, (2) J. Ma, (3) M. Bobbala, (4) P. Sahota (5) S. Chaiken. Plaintiff alleges Defendants 23 violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by denying him 24 proper medical treatment and failing to provide him adequate pain medication. Plaintiff asserts 25 he underwent arthroscopic knee surgery. Plaintiff takes issue with the treatment plan implemented 26 by certain Defendants, questioning their “ability to provide serious relief to Plaintiff’s pain and 27 deteriorating condition.” Plaintiff also takes issue with the use of ibuprofen to control his pain— 28 Plaintiff asserts it is ineffective and causes him stomach problems. Plaintiff’s allegations as to 1 each Defendant are less than clear. 2 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant J. Lewis was deliberately indifferent when he 3 denied Plaintiff’s grievance related to his knee pain. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant J. Ma was 4 deliberately indifferent by failing to provide proper medical treatment. Plaintiff seems to indicate 5 J. Ma did not treat his knee issues, requiring another physician to drain Plaintiff’s knee of fluid 6 and provide him steroid injections. Plaintiff asserts he is receiving no treatment from J. Ma other 7 than receiving ibuprofen. Plaintiff alleges M. Bobbala was deliberately indifferent in denying 8 Plaintiff’s second level HC Appeal requesting the use of Tramadol. Plaintiff alleges P. Sahota 9 was deliberately indifferent in denying Plaintiff’s request for pain relief despite knowing the pain 10 was “quite worse”. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Chaiken was deliberately indifferent by denying 11 Plaintiff’s request to be removed from Dr. J. Ma’s case load and failing to address Plaintiff’s plea 12 for pain relief. Finally, Plaintiff makes no allegations in the first amended complaint as to Does 13 1-5. 14 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the 17 prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel 18 and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 19 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts 20 of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 21 (1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v. 22 Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with 23 “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 24 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when 25 two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such 26 that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) 27 subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of 28 inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison 1 official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id. 2 Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious 3 injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105; 4 see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health 5 needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is 6 sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 7 injury or the “. . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 8 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). 9 Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition 10 is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily 11 activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See 12 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 13 The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases 14 than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with 15 medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin, 16 974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to 17 decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 18 1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See 19 Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical 20 treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. See 21 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also demonstrate 22 that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. 23 Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give 24 rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a 25 difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate 26 course of treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 27 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 /// 1 Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts against J. Ma to proceed past screening. However, 2 Plaintiff’s allegations against J. Lewis, M. Bobbala, P. Sahota, S. Chaiken, and Does 1-5 cannot 3 pass screening. These allegations are all based on Plaintiff’s belief that the modification to his 4 pain regime are ineffective at managing his pain despite several doctors and the Pain 5 Management Committee’s determination that the modification is proper based on Plaintiff’s 6 condition. This amounts to a difference of opinion between Plaintiff and these Defendants. Such 7 a difference of opinion, based on the facts alleged, does not state a claim sufficient to establish a 8 constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d at 332. 9 For that reason, Plaintiff’s complaint cannot pass the screening stage. 10 11 IV. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 12 Because it may be possible that some of the deficiencies identified in this order 13 may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal 14 of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 15 Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original 16 complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following 17 dismissal with leave to amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged 18 in the amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 19 Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order 20 to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint 21 must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. This means, in 22 practical terms, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint he must not only cure the deficiencies 23 identified in this order, but also reallege the cognizable claim(s) discussed in this Court’s order. 24 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 25 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 26 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 27 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 28 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 1 | 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 2 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claim, specifically 3 | plaintiffs claim against J. Ma, if no amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, 4 | the court will issue findings and recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be 5 | dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the 6 | cognizable claim against J. Ma. 7 8 V. CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended 10 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 11 12 13 Dated: August 16, 2019 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28