(PC) Silas v. Barbosa ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DEANDRE SILAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-0669-NODJ-BAM (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM 11 v. (ECF No. 20) 12 BARBOSA, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff DeAndre Silas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 17 complaint, and he was granted leave to amend. Thereafter, he was also granted leave to file a 18 second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is currently before the Court 19 for screening. (ECF No. 20.) 20 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 24 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 25 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 28 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 1 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 3 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 4 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 6 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 7 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 8 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 9 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 10 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 11 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 12 Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison in Sacramento, California. Plaintiff 13 alleges that the events in the complaint occurred while he was housed at California State Prison at 14 Corcoran. Plaintiff names Barbosa, correctional officer, as the sole defendant. 15 In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical need/mental health 16 in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment.1 On 12/24/22, Plaintiff was prescribed 17 medication for severe mental illness (bipolar, depression, PTSD, voices, and paranoia). 18 Defendant Barbosa was escorting the medical nurse door to door to administer mental health 19 medication. Barbosa deliberately refused to allow the nurse to provide Plaintiff with Plaintiff’s 20 prescribed medication meant to stabilize Plaintiff. Defendant Barbosa refused to open Plaintiff’s 21 door tray slot. As a result of Barbosa’s deliberate act, Plaintiff suffered a severe mental 22 breakdown because Plaintiff was lacking the ability to sleep and was hearing voices. This set into 23 motion the following acts and harm: 1) Plaintiff became convinced due to Barbosa’s actions that 24 the correctional officers and nurses were conspiring to target and kill Plaintiff which led to 25 1 Plaintiff's claims will be screened under the Eighth Amendment. “Inmates who sue prison 26 officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel 27 and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.” Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016). It appears 28 Plaintiff was a convicted prisoner at the time of the events. 1 Plaintiff going to administrative segregation that same night. 2) As Plaintiff’s symptoms got 2 worse, he became convinced that the correctional officers, who escorted nurses around to 3 administer medication, were trying to poison Plaintiff’s medication, which contributed to Plaintiff 4 refusing to take the medication out of fear and which led to Plaintiff attempting suicide and being 5 admitted into the crisis bed. 3) As Plaintiff’s mental state declined, Plaintiff increasingly became 6 paranoid, heard voices, and saw things. Plaintiff was forced to be admitted into the departmental 7 mental health ward at Stockton where Plaintiff remained for over five months to become 8 stabilized. 9 The medical nurse working that day with Defendant Barbosa confirmed that Defendant 10 Barbosa refused to open Plaintiff’s tray slot for the nurse to administer the prescribed mental 11 health medication. 12 As remedies, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 13 III. Discussion 14 Eight Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Medical Care 15 A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in 16 violation of the Eighth Amendment where the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate 17 indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) 18 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for deliberate 19 indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that failure 20 to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and 21 wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 22 indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 23 A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows 24 of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 25 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” Simmons v. Navajo Cty. Ariz., 609 26 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is 27 shown where there was “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible 28 medical need” and the indifference caused harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. In applying this 1 standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have 2 been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ 3 ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter 4 Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06). Even gross 5 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 6 v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 7 Plaintiff states a serious medical need; the need for a mental health medication prescribed 8 to him. Liberally construing the second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges facts that 9 Defendant’s response was deliberately different. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not open 10 Plaintiff’s tray slot during a medication pass when Defendant was escorting the mental health 11 nurse around who was dispensing the mental health medication. In this duty, liberally construed, 12 Defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety because 13 Defendant knew he was denying medication, knew Plaintiff needed medication (since he was 14 prescribed medication) and that Defendant deliberately did not allow medication. 15 IV. Conclusion and Order 16 Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim 17 against Defendant Barbosa for deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth 18 Amendment. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 20 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on January 2, 21 2024, against Defendant Barbosa for deliberate indifference to medical needs in 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment 23 2. A separate order will issue regarding service of the complaint. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: January 5, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28