(PC) Goods v. Carson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY GOODS, No. 2:20-cv-0416-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 He has filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 14) which the court must screen. 19 Screening 20 I. Legal Standards 21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 24 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 26 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 27 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 1 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 2 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 4 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 5 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 6 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 7 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 8 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 9 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 10 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 11 678. 12 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 14 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 15 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 16 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 17 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 18 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 19 II. Analysis 20 A. Background 21 As in his previous complaint, plaintiff’s claims primarily arise out of an incident that 22 occurred on January 8, 2017 in which another inmate stabbed him with a pen. ECF No. 14 at 5. 23 He alleges that, in the aftermath of that injury, defendant Carlson – the escorting correctional 24 officer – declined to allow medical staff to fully examine him and told staff that plaintiff was 25 “ok.” Id. Subsequently on that same day, plaintiff asked another officer - defendant Anderson – 26 for medical attention. Id. at 5-6. Anderson told plaintiff that he had informed medical staff, but 27 plaintiff claims he was never seen. Id. at 6. Later that day, plaintiff saw defendant Benito (a 28 ///// 1 nurse), showed him facial injuries from the pen stabbing, and asked to see a doctor. Id. Benito 2 offered to get him a medical form, but plaintiff did not see a doctor on that day. Id. 3 On January 11, 2017, plaintiff saw defendant Hanson, a clinician, and explained that he 4 needed to be placed on single-cell status as a consequence of his safety concerns. Id. He alleges 5 that Hanson exhibited racial prejudice against him (plaintiff is African-American) and falsely 6 wrote down that plaintiff was suicidal. Id. It is unclear how plaintiff was ultimately harmed by 7 this false notation or how it relates to his aforementioned claim about lack of medical attention 8 for his stab wounds. He further alleges that defendants Holliday and Franceschi – Hanson’s 9 superiors – covered up her misconduct. Id. at 10. 10 On January 29, 2017, plaintiff saw defendant Illa – a physician – and showed him the 11 severity of his facial stab wounds. Id. at 7. Illa allegedly told plaintiff that he would not treat the 12 stab wounds because plaintiff had been called to medical for other issues – chronic pain and toe- 13 nail fungus. Id. 14 On January 30, 2017, plaintiff saw defendant Lim – a nurse – and again sought treatment 15 for the stab wounds. Id. Lim allegedly ignored plaintiff and told him he could return to his cell. 16 Id. Hours later, plaintiff saw defendant Soltanian – a physician – and the latter removed a 17 fragment of the pen from plaintiff’s face. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he told Soltanian that there 18 was another fragment and pointed to a lump on his face. Id. Soltanian allegedly became 19 belligerent, told plaintiff that the lump was merely an abscess, and declined plaintiff’s request for 20 an x-ray. Id. 21 On February 2, 2017, defendant Kelly – a nurse – submitted a chrono which plaintiff 22 alleges falsely described him as “self-harming” and intimated that his facial injuries were, at least 23 in part, self-inflicted. Id. at 8. He alleges that Kelly went so far as to allege that plaintiff had 24 injured himself in order to provoke a lawsuit and that plaintiff had a drug-use problem. Id. 25 Separately, he alleges that defendant Soltanian exhibited racial animus against him and, 26 based thereon, revoked a prescription for plaintiff’s toe-nail fungus, which caused plaintiff 27 extreme pain. Id. at 9. 28 ///// 1 B. Viability of Claims 2 The court finds that, based on the claims alleged, plaintiff has stated potentially 3 cognizable claims for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs against 4 defendants Carlson, Illa, Lim, and Soltanian based on their alleged failure to treat his stab 5 wounds. For the reasons stated hereafter, the court finds that all other claims should be dismissed 6 without prejudice. 7 First, with respect to plaintiff’s claims regarding the false information entered into his 8 records by Hanson and Kelly, the court finds this claim insufficiently related to his primary claim 9 (failure to treat his stab wounds) to proceed in this action. Multiple claims against more than one 10 defendant belong in separate suits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) 11 (“[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but . . . [u]nrelated claims against different 12 defendants belong in different suits . . . .”). The court thus necessarily recommends dismissal of 13 the claims against defendants Holliday and Franceschi who are involved only in this unrelated 14 claim. 15 Second and similarly, the court also finds the claim that Soltanian revoked a prescription 16 for his toe-nail fungus based on racial animus unrelated to his primary claim and will recommend 17 its dismissal as well. 18 Third, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims against Anderson and Benito are insufficient 19 to state a cognizable claim for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference. As noted in its 20 previous screening order, to state an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on allegedly deficient 21 medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) 22 the defendant’s response to that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 23 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To act with deliberate 24 indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be 25 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer 26 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Here, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that either 27 Anderson or Benito’s responses to his medical needs was deliberately indifferent. As noted 28 supra, with respect to both defendants he alleges that: (1) he informed them of his needs; (2) they wMOADe 2 OVE LEAN RAT MUO, NO ee OY VY VI 1 || indicated that they would either tell medical staff or provide him a method for alerting them of his 2 || needs; and (3) despite their assurances, he was not seen by a provider on the day in question. 3 | Plaintiff has not alleged that either Anderson or Benito knew that their actions would be fruitless 4 || in procuring plaintiff medical aid. It may be, for instance, that Anderson told medical staff about 5 || plaintiff’s needs and those medical providers — by reasons of negligence, perhaps — failed to heed 6 | his request. Similarly, there is no indication that Benito offered plaintiff the medical form in bad 7 | faith or with the knowledge that it would not summon the medical help he needed. 8 Conclusion 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United 10 || States District Judge to this case. 11 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiff be allowed to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate 13 | indifference based on failure to treat his stab wounds against defendants Carlson, Illa, Lim, and 14 | Soltanian; 15 2. All other claims in the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons 16 || stated supra; and 17 3. If these recommendations are adopted, the matter be referred back to the magistrate 18 || judge so that service may be initiated for defendants Carlson, Illa, Lim, and Soltanian. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 21 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 24 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 25 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || Dated: September 25, 2020. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE