(PC) Cordova v. Hurtado ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MANUEL CORDOVA, No. 2:22-cv-01296 TLN AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 D. HURTADO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis seeks relief pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge by Local 18 Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the court for 19 screening. 20 I. Allegations in the Complaint 21 Plaintiff is a disabled inmate at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) at all times 22 relevant to the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleges a violation of the Americans 23 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when the seven members of the Reasonable Accommodation 24 Panel denied plaintiff’s request for a talking book player while he was housed in administrative 25 segregation from September 2, 2021 until February 17, 2022. By virtue of his learning disability, 26 plaintiff was denied access to services that other non-disabled inmates in administrative 27 segregation received in the form of books to read. Plaintiff also alleges a separate Eighth 28 Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim based on these same facts. 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff’s complaint does not state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference 3 to plaintiff’s serious medical need for a reading device. In order to state a claim for violation of 4 the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must allege “acts or 5 omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 6 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (emphasis added). A serious medical need exists if 7 the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the 8 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1337-41 9 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s learning disability and alleged need for a reading device support his 10 ADA claim,1 but they do not constitute a serious medical need within the meaning of the Eighth 11 Amendment. A reading device is an accommodation for a disability, not a medical treatment. 12 Failure to provide the device could not result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 13 wanton infliction of pain. Accordingly, plaintiff’s factual allegations do not support an Eighth 14 Amendment medical claim. 15 Moreover, the ADA itself “prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate 16 treatment for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) 17 (citing Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)); see also Bryant, 84 F.3d at 249 18 (“[T]he Act would not be violated by a prison’s simply failing to attend to the medical needs of 19 its disabled prisoners. . . . The ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”). 20 For these reasons, the court recommends dismissing the Eighth Amendment deliberate 21 indifference claim against defendants because this defect is not curable. See Klamath-Lake 22 Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that 23 while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 24 //// 25 //// 26 27 1 By separate order entered this same date, plaintiff’s complaint was found to state a colorable violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Service of the complaint was ordered on this 28 single ADA claim. 1 II. Plain Language Summary for Unrepresented Party 2 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 3 || the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 4 | in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 5 The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not 6 || state a valid Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants. It is recommended that this claim 7 || be dismissed from your case. Your ADA claim is proceeding as explained in a separate order. 8 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the 9 || correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 10 || Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will make the final decision about 11 || whether your Eighth Amendment claim can continue. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Eighth Amendment deliberate 14 | indifference claim against defendants be dismissed without leave to amend for failing to state a 15 | claim upon which relief may be granted. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 19 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 20 || and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 21 || to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 | DATED: May 23, 2024 ~ 23 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28