Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00629-1/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 

FILED' 

·JUL 10 2012 t ("; f7.,o / i)-f\ ry

LL.i,. j u r II 

~u... .....­

BY ,,'Oir-.,.", 

V 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIXTO Q. NAVARETTE, 

BOP #20463-298 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PIONEER MEDICAL CENTER; U.S. 

MARSHAL'S SERVICE; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISON; DR. MARK 

WHITE, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

GARNISHING BALANCE FROM 

INMATE'S TRUST ACCOUNT 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); 

and 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

Plaintiff, Sixto Q. Navarette, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at Victorville Federal 

Corrections Institution located in Adelanto, California, has filed a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a) [ECF No.5]. 

III 

III 

K\COMMONIEVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSEIWQHlI2cv0629-gn IFP & dsm.wpd -1- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 7
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 

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe United States, 

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.c. 

§ 1914( a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee only ifthe 

plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP 

remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether their action is 

ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.c. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.c. 

§ 1915( a)( 1), and that he has attached a certified copy ofhis trust account statement pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. ClvLR3.2. Plaintiffs trust account statement shows that 

he has insufficient funds from which to pay filing fees at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No.5] and assesses no 

initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the entire $350 balance ofthe 

filing fee mandated shall be collected and forwarded to the Clerk ofthe Court pursuant to the 

installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(l). 

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A 

A. Standard 

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding 

IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused 

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as 

practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these 

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion 

thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from 

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 

446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A). 

K;ICOMMON\EVERYONEI_EFlLE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0629-grt IFP & dsm wpd -2- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 7
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 

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte 

dismissal ofonly frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is 

frivolous ifit lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915Anow mandate thatthe court reviewing 

an IFP or prisoner's suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of 

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 ("[S]ection 

1915( e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 

that fails to state a claim."); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). 

"[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

"parallels the language ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's 

duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 

839 F.2d 621,623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdikv. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

B. Claims brought pursuant to § 1983 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on February 2, 2010, he was "taken to Pioneers 

Memorial Hospital" where he was "admitted to the emergency department." (Compl. at 2.) 

Plaintiff claims that he underwent an operation that was not "performed correctly" by Defendant 

White. (ld.) Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiffwas not incarcerated at the time 

these events arose. 

Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Pioneers Memorial Hospital and Defendant White 

liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements 

upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at 

issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity 

protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. 

KICOMMONlEVERYONEl_EFILE·PROSE\WQlf\12c~29·grt !FP & d.m.wpd -3- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 3 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 

327,328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold either ofthese Defendants liable pursuant to § 1983, 

his Complaint fails to allege any facts sufficient to show that a private entity or their employee 

acted "under color ofstate law." Franklin, 312 F.3d at 444; see also Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 

1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) ("While generally not applicable to private parties, a § 1983 action 

can lie against a private party" only ifhe is alleged to be "awillful participant injoint action with 

the State or its agents.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). IfPlaintiff were incarcerated 

at the time he was admitted to Pioneers Memorial Hospital, he may be able to pursue a § 1983 

claim against Defendant White but he will have to clarify his status in an Amended Complaint.] 

c. Bivens Action 

In addition, the Court notes that while Plaintiff purportedly brings this action under 

§ 1983, the Court will liberally construe some ofhis claims to arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) because Plaintiff claims violations of his 

civil rights by a federal actors. Bivens established that "compensable injury to a constitutionally 

protected interest [by federal officials alleged to have acted under color offederal law ] could be 

vindicated by a suit for damages invoking the general federal question jurisdiction ofthe federal 

courts [pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331]." Butzv. Economou, 438 U.S. 478,486 (1978). "Actions 

under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement ofa state actor under 

§ 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens." Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F .2d 406,409 (9th Cir. 1991). 

III 

1 Based on the current allegations, even ifPlaintiff were incarcerated when he underwent surgery 

by Defendant White, his allegations fail to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Plaintiff's allegations sound in negligence. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when 

prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with a prescribed course ofmedical treatment, or 

it may be shown by the way in which prison medical officials provide necessary care. Hutchinson v. 

United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). Before it can be said that a inmate's civil rights 

have been abridged with regard to medical care, however, "the indifference to his medical needs must 

be substantial. Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause 

of action." Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.s. 97, 105 - 106 (1976). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

K:ICOMMON\EVERYOl-.'EI_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0629-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -4- ]2cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 4 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

I 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

To state a private cause of action under Bivens, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was 

committed by a federal actor. Id.,' Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F .2d 621,624 

(9th Cir. 1988). Bivens provides that "federal courts have the inherent authority to award 

damages against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations oftheir constitutional 

rights." Western Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). 

However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible federal official in his or 

her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348,355 (9th Cir. 1988). In his 

Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to sue the United States Marshal Service and the Federal Bureau of 

Prison which are agencies of the government. (See Compi. at 1.) However, Bivens does not 

authorize a suit against the government or its agencies for monetary relief. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 

U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988); DalyMurphy, 837 F .2d at 355. Accordingly, the Court must DISMISS the claims against the United 

States Marshal Service and the Federal Bureau ofPrison for failing to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff raises allegations relating to the time that he spent incarcerated at a private 

facility, the Western Regional Detention Facility, and claims that he suffered from inadequate 

medical care. (See Compi at 5-6.) However, Bivens does not provide a remedy for alleged 

wrongs committed by a private entity alleged to have denied Plaintiffs constitutional rights 

under color of federal law. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 69 (2001) 

(''' [T]he purpose ofBivens is to deter the officer, ' not the agency. ") (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. 

at 485); Malesko, 534 U.S. at 66 n.2 (holding that Meyer "forecloses the extension ofBivens to 

private entities."). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot bring claims of civil rights violations against 

the Western Regional Detention Facility. 

In addition, the Supreme Court recently held that a prisoner cannot bring a Bivens action 

against an employee of a private entity for damages pursuant to alleged Eighth Amendment 

violations. See Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S.Ct. 617, 626 (2012). 

/ / / 

K:\COMMO~\EVERYONE'-EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0629-8rt IFP & d..Rwpd -5- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 5 of 7
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 Minneci, the Supreme Court held that 

[W]here "a federal prisoner seeks damages from privately employed personnel working 

at a privately operated federal prison, wnere the conduct allegedly amounts to a violation 

ofthe Eighth Amendment, and where that conduct is a kind that typically falls within the 

scope oftraditional state tort law (such as the conduct involving Improper medical care 

at issue here), the prisoner must seek a remedy under state tort law. We cannot imply a 

Bivens remedy in such a case." 

ld. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's entire Complaint must be dismissed for failing to state a claim 

upon which section 1983 reliefmay be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.5] is 

GRANTED. 

2. The Warden, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff's prison trust account the 

$350 balance ofthe filing fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account 

in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income and forward 

payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY 

IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Warden, 

Victorville Federal Corrections Institution, P.O. Box 5400, Adelanto, California 92301. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

4. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19I5(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). 

However, Plaintiff is further GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 

filed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies ofpleading 

noted above. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to 

his previous pleading. See S.D. CAL. ClvLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not reK:ICOMMON\EVERYONEI_EFILE-PROSEIWQH\12cv0629-grt IFP & dsm.wpd -6- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 6 of 7
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 

alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

5. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail a court approved form civil rights complaint 

to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _=A~~~~f-----=-2-- ___ 

K:\COMMONIEVERYONEI_EFlLE-PROSE\WQH\12cv0629-grtIFP & dsm. wpd -7- 12cv0629 WQH (DHB) 

Case 3:12-cv-00629-WQH-DHB Document 7 Filed 07/10/12 Page 7 of 7