Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02139/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO JOSEPH,

CDCR #K-62045,

Plaintiff,

v.

Dr. DAVID CLAYTON, M.D.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

ORDER: 

1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO REMOVAL 

[ECF No. 3]

2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS 

PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) [ECF No. 4]

AND 

3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

RETALIATION CLAIMS 

SUA SPONTE PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Alonzo Joseph’s Objection to Removal [ECF 

No. 3] and Defendant David Clayton’s Motion to Dismiss Joseph’s Complaint pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 4). Because the Court finds removal was proper pursuant 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 15
2

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), it OVERRULES Joseph’s objection and declines to remand the 

case to San Diego Superior Court. However, because the Court further finds Joseph’s 

Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim, it 

GRANTS Clayton’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, the 

Court sua sponte dismisses Joseph’s claims of retaliation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1), declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law general 

negligence and intentional tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and GRANTS him 

leave to amend.

I. Procedural Background & Plaintiff’s Objection to Removal

On May 31, 2019, Alonzo Joseph, who was then incarcerated at California State 

Prison‒Sacramento, filed a civil complaint in San Diego Superior Court against Clayton, a 

medical doctor employed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San 

Diego. See ECF No. 1-3 (“Compl.”) at 2‒5. Joseph checked both the “general negligence” 

and “intentional tort” boxes on the Judicial Council of California Complaint Form he used 

to assert claims of “Personal Injury, Property Damage, [or] Wrongful Death,” but he also 

attached nine additional pages of facts in which he describes Clayton’s “deliberate” 

attempts to “cut [him] off of [his] pain medication without any penological reason,” while 

he was incarcerated at RJD in early 2018, and expressly invokes the Eighth Amendment. 

Id. at 6‒8.1Joseph further alleged Dr. Clayton “deliberately retaliated” against him by 

 

1

 The Court notes Joseph may have elected to append his Eighth Amendment claims to his 

state law claims in San Diego Superior Court because he is no longer entitled to bring a 

civil action or appeal in proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in federal court unless he is 

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. 

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “[p]risoners 

who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status 

under the three strikes rule”); Joseph v. Sharma, 2018 WL 4613022, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

26, 2018) (finding that “Plaintiff Alonzo Joseph, identified as CDCR Inmate #K-62045, 

while incarcerated, has had at least six prior civil actions or appeals dismissed on the 

grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted.”), appeal dismissed, 2019 WL 1785432 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2019).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 15
3

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“playing games with [his] [t]ramadol pain medication,” “without any penological reason,” 

and that he filed a complaint against Clayton with the California Medical Board.2Id. at 9, 

14. In support of these claims, Joseph attached four separate exhibits. Id. at 16‒55.

The case was assigned Civil Case No. 37-2019-00027988-CU-PO-CTL in San 

Diego Superior Court, and on October 7, 2019, Clayton was served with a copy of the

Complaint and summons. On November 6, 2019, however, Clayton filed a Notice of 

Removal based on this Court’s original federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). See ECF No. 1 (“Def.’s Notice of Removal”) at 1‒2. 

On November 22, 2019, Joseph timely filed an Objection to Defendant’s Notice of 

Removal, arguing he “should be able [to] remain in the state courts.” See ECF No. 3; 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c). In it, Joseph argues that he “is raising a state claim,” and contends that 

while “some claims can be raised on federal level,” that “doesn’t mean that [he must] file 

on a federal level.” Id. at 1. 

While it is generally true that “the plaintiff is the master of the claim; [and] he or she 

may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law,” Caterpillar, Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Easton v. Crossland Mortg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 

(9th Cir. 1997); Rutherford v. La Jolla Riviera Apartment House LLC, 2019 WL 6125255, 

 

2

In his Motion to Dismiss, Clayton asks the Court to take judicial notice of facts from the 

Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) as “accurate and readily determinable from a source 

whose accuracy cannot reasonable be questioned.” See Def.’s Mem. of P&A’s in Supp. of 

Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 4 at 8‒9 nn. 3‒4. See Cutler v. Corr. Med. Servs., 2011 WL 

4479025, at *7 (D. Idaho Sept. 26, 2011) (noting that “Ultram (tramadol) ... is a 

prescription medication that is a ‘centrally acting synthetic opioid analgesic,’” and finding 

it “appropriate to take judicial notice of well-known medical facts, such as those contained 

in the Physician's Desk Reference.”) (citing United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 880 

& n.7 (9th Cir. 2004). Clayton cites the PDR’s drug summary description which contains 

the following warning: “Tramadol is an opioid agonist and therefore has abuse potential 

and risk of fatal overdose from respiratory failure. Addiction may occur in patients who 

obtain tramadol illicitly or in those appropriately prescribed the drug.” Id. at 8 n.3 (citing

https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Ultram-tramadol-hydrochloride-950.904).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 15
4

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019), Joseph’s Complaint in this case expressly alleges “Dr. 

David Clayton [has] been violating my Eighth Amendment rights by failing to take steps 

to improve a serious medical need,” and contends Clayton’s actions “amount[] to deliberate 

indifference,” insofar as “he chose the course [in] conscious disregard [of] an excessive 

risk to [his] health.” See ECF No. 1‒3 at 6‒7; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)(A) (noting removal 

is proper even if federal law and state law claims are joined, so long as the “civil action 

includes‒‒(A) a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States 

(within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 of this title....”). 

Thus, because a federal question is “presented in the face of [Joseph’s] properly 

pleaded complaint,” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, and he has not “avoid[ed] federal 

jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law,” Balcorta v. Twentieth Century–Fox Film 

Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 

1042 (9th Cir. 2009), removal was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and Joseph’s 

objection [ECF No. 3] must be OVERRULED.

II. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations

Joseph claims he has “severe cirrhosis of the liver,” is ineligible for surgery, and 

suffers from “severe pain and discomfort” that “limit[s] [his] daily functions.” See Compl., 

ECF No. 1‒3 at 6, 11. He alleges that on February 14, 2018, March 3, 2018, March 8, 2018, 

March 9, 2018, and again on March 14, 2018, he “went [to] see[] ... Dr. David Clayton, or 

the neurologists about [his] chronic pain issues,” and the neurologist “told ... Clayton to 

put [Joseph] on pain management.” In so doing, Joseph claims Clayton “deliberately tr[ied] 

[to] cut [him] off [his] pain medication,” and “play[ed] games with [his] [t]ramadol” “for 

no reason.” Id. at 6, 9, 17, 19. Joseph further contends Clayton filed a “false report in [his] 

medical file” alleging he “refuse[d] to test,” and claiming he had a “long use of drug abuse.” 

Joseph claims, however, that while he has been in prison for 23 years, he has “never had a 

dirty test for anything,” and has never received a “write up for cheeking any medication.” 

Id. at 14. In sum, Joseph alleges Clayton tried to “label” him as a “drug abuse[r],” and 

“fail[ed] to take steps to improve [his] serious medical need,” by ignoring “demonstrated 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 15
5

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

facts about [his] pain,” and repeatedly prescribing “the same ... 16 different antiinflammatory meds” that “didn’t work.” Id. at 9, 14, 19.

In support of his Complaint, Joseph attaches the results of a lumbar spine x-ray dated 

March 3, 2018, which was recommended by an unidentified neurologist, together with a 

referral to a “PCP” for “pain mgmt” dated February 14, 2018. Id. at 21. Another exhibit 

documents Joseph’s diagnosis of “mild to moderate multilevel degenerative endplate 

sclerosis and osteophytosis, progressed from [a] prior exam.” Id. at 21‒22. Also attached 

is a “Chronic Pain Intake Sheet” which Joseph claims to have completed sometime in 2015, 

and in which he reported diagnoses of “degenerative disc and joint disease,” “19 years” of 

pain, 3 MRIs, “numerous” x-rays, referrals to orthopedic surgeons and neurologists, and a 

history of prescriptions for gabapentin, morphine, and tramadol. Id. at 14, 35‒40. 

Additional random excerpts of Joseph’s “Medication Administration Record (Controlled 

Substance)” (“MAR”) dated March 2008, May‒July 2016, June‒July 2017, and November 

25, 2016 through December 1, 2016, all account previously prescribed pain medications, 

including gabapentin, tramadol, morphine, and methadone. Id. at 44, 49, 50, 51.

III. Clayton’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Arguments

Dr. Clayton moves to dismiss Joseph’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) claiming it is based on a mere difference of opinion and not the “deliberate 

indifference” required to support an Eighth Amendment violation. See ECF No. 4 at 11‒

14 (“Def.’s Mem. of P&A’s in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss”). Clayton contends that the 

“robust development of the factual basis of [Joseph’s] claim, through inclusion of the 

administrative remedies submissions and findings [he has attached] as exhibits” show his 

claim is based on a disagreement “between an inmate with no medical training and his 

physician regarding the best means of achieving pain relief in an institutional setting,” and 

as such, is “not actionable” under § 1983. Id. at 8. 

Joseph objects, claiming that his medical records “don’t lie,” and that they instead 

reveal Dr. Clayton’s “deliberate[] and intentional[]” decision to “discontinue [his] pain 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 15
6

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

medication without any legitimate reason.” See Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF No. 6] at 3. Joseph argues 

Clayton is “minimiz[ing] [his] medical condition,” downplays his documented history of 

severe and prolonged pain, and ignores those parts of his MAR which document years of 

his having been previously prescribed “powerful painkillers” like morphine and tramadol. 

Id. at 2‒3; see also Compl., ECF No. 1-3 at 44‒47, 49, 50‒55.

B. Standard of Review

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. 

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 

either for lack of a cognizable legal theory or failure to allege sufficient facts to support a 

cognizable legal theory. Taylor v. Yee, 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir. 2015). In ruling on a 

motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true 

and construes them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Cedars-Sinai 

Medical Center v. National League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 

2007). 

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)); Villa v. Maricopa Cty., 865 F.3d 1224, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2017). A claim is facially 

plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678. Plausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory allegations or 

the “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

which rise above the mere conceivability or possibility of unlawful conduct. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79; Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2013). “Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 

not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While a pleading “does not require ‘detailed factual 

allegations,’” Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 15
7

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are 

merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility 

and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation and quotes 

omitted); accord Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

“In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual 

content,’ and reasonable inferences [drawn] from that content, must be plausibly suggestive 

of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 

Finally, because Rule 12(b)(6) focuses on the “sufficiency” of a claim rather than 

the claim’s substantive merits, “a court may [ordinarily] look only at the face of the 

complaint,” Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002), 

including the exhibits attached to it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written 

instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.”); United 

States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Bryan v. City of Carlsbad, 297 F. Supp. 

3d 1107, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 18-55434, 2018 WL 3244047 (9th 

Cir. May 23, 2018).3

C. Eighth Amendment Claims

Only “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle 

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 104 (1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

“A determination of ‘deliberate indifference’ involves an examination of two elements: (1) 

 

3 While “it is not the Court’s duty to wade through exhibits to determine whether cognizable 

claims have been stated,” Woodrow v. Cty. of Merced, 2015 WL 164427, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan 13, 2015), the Court considers the exhibits Joseph attached to his Complaint because 

he references these “attach[ed] pages” several times in the body of his pleading. See 

Compl., ECF No. 1-3 at 5, 8, 9, 10, 13; Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(reaffirming court’s duty to liberally construe pro se pleadings after Iqbal). 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 15
8

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and (2) the nature of the defendant’s 

response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled 

on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) 

(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th 

Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

First, “[b]ecause society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access 

to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment 

violation only if those needs are ‘serious.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992), 

citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103‒104. “A ‘serious’ medical need exists if the failure to treat 

a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin, 914 F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). 

“The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and 

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly 

affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are 

examples of indications that a prisoner has a ‘serious’ need for medical treatment.” Id.

(citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337‒41 (9th Cir. 1990); Hunt v. Dental 

Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200‒01 (9th Cir. 1989)).

Here, Clayton does not argue that Joseph has failed to allege facts to plausibly show 

that his medical needs were serious, and the Court finds his Complaint is sufficiently 

pleaded in this regard. See e.g., Rosado v. Alameida, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1187 (S.D. Cal. 

2007) (finding a prisoner’s “end stage liver cirrhosis and ... condition was serious and 

potentially life-threatening” under Eighth Amendment standards); Watson v. Sisto, 2011 

WL 5155175, at *22 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011) (noting no dispute that plaintiff’s 

degenerative disc disease was a “serious medical need” subject to Eighth Amendment 

protection), aff’d sub nom. Watson v. Swarthout, 536 F. App’x 747 (9th Cir. 2013). 

“Degenerative disc disease poses its own unique set of medical issues, including serious 

consideration of the various medical treatment options available.” Jackson v. Rallos, 2012 

WL 1037937, at *31 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 15
9

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, the Court must next decide whether Joseph’s Complaint further contains 

sufficient “factual content” to show Clayton acted with “deliberate indifference” to his 

needs. McGuckin, 914 F.2d. at 1060; see also Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2004).

Clayton rightly contends that a mere “difference of medical opinion ... [is] 

insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference,” Jackson v. McIntosh, 

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996), and that disagreements between a prisoner and his treating 

physician as to the need to pursue one course of treatment over another fall short of meeting 

that standard. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. 

at 107). Instead, to sufficiently plead an Eighth Amendment violation based on “alternative 

courses of treatment,” Joseph must allege facts sufficient to plausibly show that Clayton’s 

“chosen course of treatment, i.e., a reduction or discontinuation of his tramadol prescription 

based on a finding that he was “not a candidate for narcotic or any habit-forming 

medications,” and the substitution of a continued course of “aspirin, salsalate, 

acetaminophen, and diclofenac” to instead manage his pain, see Pl.’s Ex. A, ECF No. 1-3 

at 25, was “‘medically unacceptable under the circumstances,’ and was taken ‘in conscious 

disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (citations 

omitted).4

 

4 While a prisoner is “free to refuse specific medications or types of medication, he does 

not have a right to dictate what medications he will be prescribed.” Peacock v. Horowitz, 

2016 WL 3940346, at *7 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2016) (citing Stiltner v. Rhay, 371 F.2d 420, 

421 n.3 (9th Cir. 1967) (allegations that a prisoner feels he is not receiving the “the kind 

and quality of medical treatment he believes is indicated” do not “justify federal 

intervention.”); see also Medina v. Barenchi, 2016 WL 7325508, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 

2016) (sua sponte dismissing Eighth Amendment claims against prison doctors pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A because “while Plaintiff obviously disagrees with 

Defendants’ assessment of his need for narcotics to treat his pain,” dissatisfaction alone is 

insufficient to support a deliberate indifference claim); Hardwick v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. & Rehab., 2018 WL 3244028, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (“Plaintiff’s allegations 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 15
10

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is where Joseph’s pleading fails‒‒for while he broadly contends Clayton acted 

with “conscious disregard [to] an excessive risk to [his] health,” and “deliberately ignored 

[his] standard medical needs,” see Compl. at 7, 11, 12, these are only “[t]hreadbare recitals 

of the elements of a[n] [Eighth Amendment] cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Without “further factual enhancement” which 

plausibly suggests Clayton modified Joseph’s pain management plan to reduce his 

tramadol dependence knowing that it would cause a serious and medically unacceptable 

risk of harm to him, Joseph’s Complaint fails to plead the deliberate indifference necessary 

to sustain a plausible claim for relief. Id.; see also Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (finding 

claims that “Seroquel is superior to Triafon, and therefore should not have been 

discontinued” insufficient to support showing of “deliberate indifference”); see also 

DeGeorge v. Mindoro, 2019 WL 2123590, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019) (finding prison 

doctor’s decision “to wean plaintiff off morphine” was not “medically unacceptable” in 

light of other “reasonable steps [taken] to abate plaintiff’s pain” and finding no deliberate 

indifference despite plaintiff’s claims that only morphine was “very effective” in treating 

his lower back pain). 

In sum, the Court finds Joseph’s bare allegations that Clayton decided to “play[] 

games with his tramadol” because he “no longer think[s] [he] need[s] [it],” and instead 

prescribed “old medications,” that Joseph contends “didn’t work” to sufficiently alleviate 

his pain, see Compl., at 9, 14, do as Dr. Clayton claims, boil down to a “mere difference of 

opinion with [his] treatment plan,” see Def.’s Mem. of P&As in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, 

ECF No. 4 at 15, and as such, simply do not rise to the level of cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent 

in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical 

 

fail to show that defendants denied or delayed treatment or that prescribing Sulindac 

without simultaneously giving him Prilosec was medically unacceptable.”), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4441052 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 15
11

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a 

constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” (emphasis added)); 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (“[A] plaintiff’s showing of ‘nothing more than a difference of 

medical opinion as to the need to pursue one course of treatment over another’ [is] 

insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference.”) (quoting Jackson, 90 

F.3d at 332); Gauthier v. Stiles, 402 Fed. Appx. 203 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal

of plaintiff’s disagreement with the dosage and type of pain medication administered after 

surgery as insufficient to show deliberate indifference).

For these reasons, Clayton’s Motion to Dismiss Joseph’s Eighth Amendment 

inadequate medical care claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 4] is 

GRANTED.

IV. Sua Sponte Review and Dismissal of Retaliation Claims per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

The Court notes Clayton does not address Joseph’s claims that he also “deliberately 

retaliated on [him] for no reason, by playing games with [his] [t]ramadol medication.” 

Compl., ECF No. 1‒3 at 14. However, to the extent Joseph intended to allege a separate 

First Amendment claim, the Court sua sponte finds his allegations insufficient to state a 

plausible claim of retaliation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 

1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016) (Section 1915A “mandates early review—‘before docketing [] 

or [] as soon as practicable after docketing’—for all complaints ‘in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.’”); 

Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dept. of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017) (Section 

1915A requires that the court sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, “or any portion of 

the complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails 

five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 15
12

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.”). Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567‒68 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

Here, Joseph alleges Dr. Clayton took adverse action against him; but he fails to 

allege the Doctor’s actions were caused by any protected conduct on Joseph’s part, had a

chilling effect on the exercise of his First Amendment rights, or that Clayton’s pain 

management prescription regimen failed to allege advance any legitimate penological goal. 

Id.; cf. Miller v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 2018 WL 534306, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 24, 2018) (“Taking a prisoner off opiates that are not appropriate for his medical 

condition also advances the legitimate penological goal of reducing prescription drug abuse 

and drug addiction among the prison population.”). 

And even if the Court were to assume the filing of complaint with the California 

Medical Board was “protected conduct,” Joseph does not allege Clayton was aware of that 

complaint or any inmate grievance he filed while he alleges to have been under Dr. 

Clayton’s care in February and March 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1‒3 at 6. In fact, 

Joseph’s Exhibits show his complaint to the Medical Board of California was not submitted 

until October 21, 2018, id. at 29‒33, and his CDCR 602 Health Care Grievance, Log. No. 

RJDHC 18003068, was not filed until December 10, 2018. Id. at 17‒27. See Sorrano’s 

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1315–16 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that while “the 

timing and nature” of an allegedly adverse action can “properly be considered” as 

circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent, the official alleged to have retaliated must also 

be alleged to have been aware of the plaintiff’s protected conduct); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 

F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting 

that “mere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient” and 

affirming summary judgment where there was “nothing in the record to indicate 

[defendant] even knew about [an] earlier [law]suit.”); see also Coreno v. Gamboa, 2011 

WL 6334351 at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding that while prisoner’s allegations that doctor 

reduced narcotic pain medication in retaliation for his inmate grievances and complaint to 

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 15
13

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the California Medical Board were sufficient to show prisoner had engaged in protected 

conduct, his retaliation claim failed because he did not show doctor “was aware of such 

conduct at the time.”); accord Rojo v. Paramo, 2014 WL 2586904, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 

10, 2014).

V. State Law Claims

Perhaps because it was originally filed in San Diego Superior Court, Joseph’s 

Complaint also alleges Clayton committed acts of “general negligence” and “intentional 

tort” arising under California law. See Compl., ECF No. 3-1 at 5, 8, 10, 13. Clayton does 

not move to dismiss these claims, but under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), “district courts may 

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [state-law claims] if ... the district court 

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”

“[W]hen deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court

should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of 

judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of 

Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 

343, 350 (1988)). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before 

trial, the balance of factors will point towards declining to exercise jurisdiction over the 

remaining state-law claims.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 

1997) (en banc) (quoting Carnegie Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7).

Because the Court has dismissed all Joseph’s federal claims but will grant him leave 

to amend, it declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over his purported state law claims 

at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. Joseph is cautioned, however, 

that should he elect to amend his federal claims and include supplemental state law claims

against Clayton, he must also allege pre-suit compliance with California’s Tort Claims Act 

with respect to those claims. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 

627 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that supplemental state law tort claims alleged in a § 1983 suit 

against both the individual and public entity defendants may be dismissed if the plaintiff 

“fails to allege compliance with California tort claims procedures” before filing suit).

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 15
14

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VI. Leave to Amend

Finally, Clayton argues that “the facts as developed simply cannot form the basis for 

a plausible claim of deliberate indifference,” and therefore requests that the dismissal of 

Joseph’s Complaint “be entered with prejudice.” See ECF No. 4 at 15. But in light of his 

pro se status, the Court will grant Joseph leave to amend his pleading deficiencies against 

Dr. Clayton, if he can. See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A 

district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend [pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)] unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 

complaint could not be cured by amendment.’”) (quoting Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212 (9th Cir. 2012)). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 

951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).

However, Joseph’s First Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without 

reference to his original pleading; any claim he fails to re-allege against Dr. Clayton will 

be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner 

& Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the 

original.”); Lacey, 693 F.3d at 928 (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which 

are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

VII. Conclusion and Orders

Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Removal [ECF 

No. 3];

2) GRANTS Defendant Clayton’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment Claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 4];

3) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1); 

4) DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); and

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 15
15

3:19-cv-2139-GPC-RBM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5) GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint against Dr. 

Clayton no later than April 1, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file a First Amended Complaint on 

or before April 1, 2020, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action in its 

entirety based both on his failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order 

requiring amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 

plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 

may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02139-GPC-RBM Document 8 Filed 02/18/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 15