(PC) Silas v. Barbosa ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEANDRE SILAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-0669-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE 14 BARBOSA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 15 Defendant. STATE A CLAIM 16 (ECF No. 11) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff DeAndre Silas (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 20 complaint, and he was granted leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is currently 21 before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 11.) 22 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 26 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 27 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b). 28 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 2 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 3 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 5 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 6 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 7 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 8 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 9 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 10 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 11 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 12 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 13 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 14 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 15 Plaintiff is currently housed at California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. 16 Plaintiff alleges that the events in the complaint occurred while he was housed at California State 17 Prison at Corcoran. Plaintiff names Barbosa, Peace Officer, as the sole defendant. 18 Plaintiff alleges: “I was denied my right to medical care which lead to cruel and unusual 19 punishment.” As factual support of his claim, Plaintiff alleges: “On 12-24-22 during medication 20 pass c/o Barbosa refused to open my tray slot so the medical nurse could give me my medication 21 because I suffer from a mental disability which only got worse from me not taking my 22 medication.” 23 As remedies, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages. 24 III. Discussion 25 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to 26 state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 28 Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 1 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations 2 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 3 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must 4 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 5 its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 6 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss, 7 572 F.3d at 969. 8 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but not a plain statement of his claims. Much of 9 Plaintiff’s allegations is conclusory as to what happened or when it happened. In the Court’s 10 prior screening, Plaintiff was informed that he should state his key factual allegations in the body 11 of the complaint and to comply with the provided legal standards. Plaintiff has been unable to 12 cure this deficiency to include factual allegations identifying what happened, when it happened 13 and who was involved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 14 B. Eight Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Medical Care 15 Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a claim for deliberate indifference to medical care. 16 A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in 17 violation of the Eighth Amendment where the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate 18 indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) 19 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for deliberate 20 indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that failure 21 to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and 22 wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 23 indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 24 A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows 25 of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 26 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” Simmons v. Navajo Cty. Ariz., 609 27 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is 28 shown where there was “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible 1 medical need” and the indifference caused harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. In applying this 2 standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have 3 been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ 4 ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter 5 Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06). Even gross 6 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 7 v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 Liberally construing the first amended complaint, Plaintiff states a serious medical need 9 for a mental disability. However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that Defendant’s response was 10 deliberately different. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not open the tray slot during a 11 medication pass. Plaintiff fails to allege facts that Defendant knew of and disregarded an 12 excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant knew he was 13 denying medication, knew Plaintiff needed medical or had a serious medical need, or that 14 Defendant deliberately did not allow medication. Plaintiff has been unable to cure this 15 deficiency. 16 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 17 For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for 18 relief. Despite being provided with the relevant legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure 19 the deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 20 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 22 district judge to this action. 23 Further, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action 24 be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. 25 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 27 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 28 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 3 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: July 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28