Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429-6/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

GILL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01429-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 25.)

ORDER DISMISSING EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT DELIBERATE 

INDIFFERENCE CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT BALLESTEROS FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING 

CLAIMS, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED 

Roberto Herrera (Aplaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 9, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

this action be dismissed based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted under §1983. (Doc. 25.) On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations. (Doc. 26.)

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 27 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations – with one 

exception – to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff’s claims regarding the named and unnamed 

LVNs’ failures or refusals to issue medication did not state a claim for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. A showing of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

involves examination of two elements: a serious medical need and the defendant’s response to 

that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) overruled on other grounds

by, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Bibbs v. 

Sayre, 2014 WL 4090529, *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014). This Court agrees that, despite

plaintiff having alleged a serious medical need, plaintiff’s allegation that he did not receive his 

prescribed medication is insufficient to show defendants’ deliberate indifference to that need 

(i.e., that the nurses knew that he would suffer pain but purposefully or deliberately refused to 

provide the medication prescribed). See Lopez v. Florez, 2013 WL 5719516, *7-8 (E.D. Cal. 

Oct. 21, 2013). However, in plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

recommendations, he articulated additional facts regarding his interactions with the nurses who 

refused to provide him with his prescribed pain medication. Doc. 26 at 2-4.1This Court cannot 

say that any further amendment would be futile as to this claim. Accordingly, as to this claim 

only, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

Otherwise, the Court agrees that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations 

are supported by the record and proper analysis.

///

 

1

Plaintiff notes in his objections that he made defendant Ballesteros aware that he had not received his prescribed 

medication and that he was in pain but she refused to provide the prescribed medication. Such conduct, if factually 

developed, could indicate deliberate indifference. Bibbs v. Sayre, 2014 WL 4090529 at *5 (citing McGuckin, 974 

F.2d at 1062); Lopez v. Florez, 2013 WL 5719516 at *5 (“Deliberate indifference may appear when a defendant 

denies ... or intentionally interferes with medical treatment.”) Plaintiff is warned that a showing of “negligence” or 

“medical malpractice” is inadequate to show deliberate indifference. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th 

Cir. 2004).

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 27 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 9, 

2015, are adopted in part;

2. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Ballesteros and other unknown nurses refused to 

provide him his prescribed medication is dismissed, for failure to state a claim. 

Plaintiff will be afforded one final opportunity to amend as to this claim;

3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint as to his Eighth Amendment claim for 

deliberate interference with medical treatment by Defendant Ballesteros and 

other unknown nurses within 45 days of the date of this order, failure to file an 

amended complaint will result in dismissal of the action and closure of the case;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, 

based on plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 

under § 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 27 Filed 05/07/15 Page 3 of 3