Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01741/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01741-1/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

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

AVERILLE WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNOSO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01741 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Averille Willis (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 18, 2015. 

Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2016. He names 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) Associate Warden J. Reynoso, R.N. 

M. Carrasquillo, Custody Appeals Representative C. Ramos, Correctional Counselor M. Hildreth, 

Health Care CEO C. Cryer and Health Care CMO G. Ugwueze as Defendants.

1

A. SCREENING STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on December 3, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 6
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

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CSATF, where the events at issue occurred.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 19, 2014, Defendants Reynoso, Carrasquillo, Ramos 

and Hildreth held a Reasonable Accommodation Panel meeting related to Plaintiff’s disability 

chronos. A physician at Folsom State Prison issued the chronos because of Plaintiff’s chronic low 

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 6
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

3

back pain and mobility issues. The accommodations were to “ensure the health and safety 

measures of [his] activity and living conditions to aid [his] medical conditions from further injury 

and pain.” ECF No. 8, at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Reynoso, Carrasquillo, Ramos and 

Hildreth failed to carry out their delegated duties and responsibilities to make an adequate medical 

care decision “to remedy unlawful conditions that they knew of should have known about based 

on medical records,” and Plaintiff’s transfer for his serious medical needs. ECF No. 8, at 7. 

As a result of their decision not to reinstate the chronos and DPM status, Plaintiff has been 

forced to comply with “actions and situations” that cause pain and injury. ECF No. 8, at 7.

On November 1, 2014, Plaintiff requested an interview with Defendant Cryer, who was 

aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs because of his position. Defendant Cryer ignored the 

request. Defendant Cryer also denied Plaintiff’s appeal to reinstate his accommodations on 

January 27, 2015.

Plaintiff filed requests and appeals to the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators on 

November 26, 2014, December 17, 2014, and February 1, 2015, to explain why he should not be 

removed from the DPM program. Plaintiff contends that all attempts to receive appropriate 

accommodations were deliberately ignored by health care staff who could have helped.

On January 11, 2015, Plaintiff asked for an interview with Defendant Ugwueze. The 

request was ignored.

Upon Plaintiff’s belief, his serious medical needs were made clear to each of the CSATF 

Health Care Executives, as he was transferred to CSATF based on an agreement between the two 

facilities for Plaintiff’s treatment plan. Plaintiff states that he has not received any of the treatment 

that was prescribed at Folsom State Prison. He contends that all Defendants interfered with 

treatment. 

Plaintiff alleges that the decisions and denials set into motion a serious of events that 

Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, cause a constitutional violation. Plaintiff 

continues to suffer pain and injury from the actions. Since the decisions, he has had to 

continuously walk up and down stairs and get all the way down on the ground when officers 

respond to an emergency code. A treating physician at Folsom strongly cautioned against 

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 6
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

4

climbing stairs, bending and stooping. With his accommodations, Plaintiff would not have had to 

suffer through these actions.

Plaintiff alleges that his accommodations were discontinued for no reason, and that there 

were no examinations to indicate that his condition was treated or cured. Plaintiff had received the 

accommodations 62 days before the Panel hearing.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096).

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation 

and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

2. Analysis

In the prior screening order, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s belief that his chronos 

should be reinstated was simply a disagreement with a medical opinion, and that the exhibits to his 

original complaint showed that the course of treatment was not medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987-988 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court found:

///

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s exhibits show that he was taken out of the Accommodation Program on 

October 30, 2014, after Dr. Kandhorova determined that he could ambulate well without an 

assistive device for over 100 yards. ECF No. 1, at 14. In denying his request to reinstate 

his accommodations, the Panel explained that “DPP” status was not medically indicated, as 

Plaintiff was ambulating well with no assistive devices. ECF No. 1, at 13. Defendant 

Cryer also explained, in denying Plaintiff’s appeal at the Second Level, that his August 13, 

2014, MRI was reviewed at his October 30, 2010, appointment. At the appointment, he 

was seen walking fine, without a limp or signs of pain. Dr. Kandhorova, his Primary Care 

Provider, also observed Plaintiff sit and stand without difficulty, and without the use of 

cane. Upon exam, Dr. Kandhorova asked him to stand, to which Plaintiff complied 

without difficulty or visible pain, and without a cane. Dr. Kandhorova found Plaintiff to 

have well-developed muscles, with no sign of atrophy. ECF No. 1, at 24-25.

Based on these exhibits, Dr. Kandhorova used her medical judgment to determine 

that Plaintiff’s placement in the Accommodation Program was not medically indicated at 

that time. While Plaintiff may not agree with the decision, he has not demonstrated that the 

decision was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, or chosen in conscious 

disregard of an excessive risk.

In turn, reliance on Dr. Kandhorova’s decision by Defendants Reynoso, 

Carrasquillo, Ramos and Hildreth in denying his request does not, without more, indicate 

that they acted with deliberate indifference.

ECF No. 7, at 4-5. 

In amending, Plaintiff omits his exhibits and argues that he was taken out of the program 

for no reason, and without an examination to show that his conditions were treated or cured. He 

cannot now state a claim by ignoring and/or contradicting evidence that may be unfavorable to his 

allegations. “A party cannot amend pleadings to ‘directly contradict an earlier assertion made in 

the same proceeding.’” Air Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., 

Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 

1990)).

Therefore, the Court’s prior analysis, explained in part above, remains applicable and 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendant. ECF No. 7.

Insofar as Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with his medical treatment, he 

presents no facts to support such a finding. Vague, conclusory statements, unsupported by facts, 

are insufficient to state a claim.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against any Defendants. Given the nature of 

Plaintiff’s attempt to amend, the Court finds that further amendment is not warranted. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Noll v. Carlson, 809 

F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for 

which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01741-DLB Document 10 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 6