Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PURDY, 

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-00999 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS 

(Document 27)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 

2, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and it was 

transferred to this Court on June 24, 2014. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Purdy.

Defendant Purdy filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 18, 2016. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 6, 2016, and 

Defendant Purdy filed a reply on June 9, 2016. The motion is ready for decision pursuant to 

Local Rule 230(l).

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 42 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

A. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2013, he and his cellmate told Officers Corona and 

Flores that his blood sugar was a little low and that he wanted to see medical. The officers called 

and were told that medical was not there, that Plaintiff would be seen later, and that Plaintiff 

should stop complaining or he’d receive a CDCR 115. At that time, Plaintiff had a seizure. His 

cellmate gave him jellies to raise his blood sugar level and called “man down.” ECF No. 21, at 3. 

Once again, the officers called medical and told medical that Plaintiff had a seizure. In response, 

Plaintiff was told to stop complaining.

On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff asked Defendant why she and other medical staff refused 

to go and treat Plaintiff for low blood sugar. Defendant told him that it was about to be shift 

change, and they were not going to deal with him. Defendant began to laugh. Plaintiff told 

Defendant that his life is not a joke and she tried to apologize.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s neglect caused him physical and mental harm.

B. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a 

claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 

1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

1762 (2012). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative 

pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. 

Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 

1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 

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

accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 

1955, 1964-65 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. 

U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the factual 

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 42 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, DanielsHall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 

1153 (9th Cir. 2000), and in this Circuit, pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di 

Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

C. SCREENING

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was screened and the Court determined it stated a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 908 

(“Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915A ‘incorporates the familiar standard applied 

in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’”) 

(quoting Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening standard is the same as Rule 12(b)(6) standard). Defendant’s 

acknowledgement that the complaint was screened is noted; however, she presents no arguments 

which persuade the Court it erred in determining that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim was 

cognizable or that any other grounds justifying relief from the screening order exist. See Ingle v. 

Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district court abuses its discretion in applying 

the law of the case doctrine only if (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening 

change in the law occurred; (3) the evidence on remand was substantially different; (4) other 

changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.”). As explained 

below, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to allow him to proceed past the pleading stage.

D. DISCUSSION

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution is violated 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, 680 F.3d at 1122; 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 42 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

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 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 

(9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts 

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that 

person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a 

prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated 

the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of

Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Purdy had actual 

knowledge of a substantial risk of harm. Defendant acknowledges that in the July 17, 2015, 

screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Purdy told him that she 

didn’t want to deal with him at shift change was sufficient to demonstrate knowledge. Defendant 

disagrees with that finding, contending that Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Purdy knew 

that he was exhibiting signs of illness, or that she could have prevented harm by providing 

immediate assistance.

As explained above, Plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally, and the Court 

“‘may only dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that 

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (quoting Silva, 658 F.3d at 1101). Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as 

true, Silva, 658 F.3d at 1105, indicate that (1) Defendant Purdy’s acknowledgment that she did 

not want to deal with him because of a shift change shows that she knew of his medical condition 

but failed to assist; and (2) Plaintiff’s medical condition worsened as a result. Plaintiff must be 

afforded the benefit of any doubt, Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42, and his allegations, although 

requiring an inference, are sufficient to permit him to at least proceed past the pleading stage.

Insofar as Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations show nothing more than 

negligence, the argument is foreclosed by the above findings.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 42 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 5
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

E. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant Purdy’s 

motion to dismiss, filed on March 18, 2016, be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 42 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 5