Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01998/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01998-2/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 F! L ID

2

iSEP 12 PH H M

3

cl m*- y.s,! B'SFftict jousyr

= F = • •« : M D^tW^RSi- GfesrifUsMiA

4

Pnc DE^ilT V 5 *JV

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 STEPHEN DRAGASITS, Case No.: 3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

13 v.

1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; and 14 DR. JIN YU, et al.,

15 Defendants.

2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 16

17

[Docket Nos. 12,21] 18

19 On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff Stephen Dragasits, a state prisoner incarcerated at the

Richard Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), and proceedingpro se and informa

pauperis (“IFP”), filed a complaint alleging several civil rights violations under federal

and state law. (Docket No. 1.) On November 15, 2016, this Court sua sponte dismissed

certain claims and defendants in Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to its obligation to review

and dismiss portions ofIFP complaints which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim, or seek damages from defendants who are immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B),

1915(A)(b). (Docket No. 5.) Thereafter, remaining Defendants Dr. Jin Yu (“Yu”), Dr.

R. Walker (“Walker”), Dr. S. Roberts (“Roberts”), Dr. M. Glynn (“Glynn”), and

California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Deputy Director J.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
Lewis (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the remaining claims in

Plaintiffs Complaint. (Docket No. 12.) The Motion is fully briefed.

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this Court grant Defendants’ Motion and

dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. (Docket No. 21.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge

Burkhardt found that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim for Eighth Amendment

violations or three California state law claims against any ofthe Defendants. After

determining Plaintifffailed to sufficiently allege the existence of a constitutional

violation, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt concluded that Defendants are entitled to qualified

immunity. The day before objections were due, Plaintifffiled a motion for an extension

oftime to file his objections, which the Court granted. (Docket Nos. 23-24.) Plaintiff

subsequently filed objections to the Report. (Docket No. 25.) Defendant did not file any

objections or a reply to Plaintiffs objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report is

ADOPTED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 BACKGROUND

The Report and Recommendation carefully details the relevant factual background

ofthis case, which the Court incorporates by reference.

DISCUSSION

A districtjudge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the districtjudge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a districtjudge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3:16-cv-Ol998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
Plaintiff generally objects to the Report’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim

against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need in violation

ofthe Eighth Amendment. Having conducted a de novo review, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in full.

Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment because they did not issue him a low bunk

chrono. (Compl. at 27-34.) In essence, Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants were aware

that his placement in an upper bunk put him at a substantial risk offalling from it, and did

not take reasonable steps to minimize this risk or protect him from injury. (Id. at 28.)

“The Constitution ‘does not mandate comfortable prisons[.]”’ Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)).

“[B]ut neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that ‘the treatment a

prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to

scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment[.]”’ Id. at 832 (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 31 (1993)). Among other protections, the Eighth Amendment “imposes duties

on [prison] officials, who must ... ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing,

shelter, and medical care, and must ‘take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of

the inmates[.]’” Id. at 832 (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-527 (1984)).

To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care, a

plaintiffmust allege facts to indicate that a defendant was “deliberately] indifferen[t]” to

his “serious medical needs.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014)

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This includes allegations under

“both an objective standard -that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel

and unusual punishment- and a subjective standard - deliberate indifference.” Id. at

1066 (quoting Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012)).

Plaintiff appears to object to the Report on two grounds: 1) that he sufficiently

alleged a serious medical need, and 2) that he sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

(See Pl.’s Obj. at 2-3.) Plaintiff did not raise any objections to dismissal ofhis state law

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

3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
claims. Plaintiffs objections are unfounded. First, the Report clearly states that

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt concluded for purposes ofthe motion to dismiss that Plaintiff

sufficiently pled facts to satisfy the serious medical need component noting: “Defendants

do not dispute that Plaintiff adequately alleges a serious medical need.” (Report at 14.)

The Court, having reviewed the parties’ briefings, agrees with Magistrate Judge

Burkhardt’s conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiffs objection on this ground is moot.

Second, as to the sufficiency ofPlaintiffs allegations regarding deliberate

indifference, the Court agrees that Plaintiff did not allege specific facts from which it

may infer any ofthe Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. “A prison official is

deliberately indifferent under the subjective element ofthe test only ifthe official ‘knows

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.’” Colwell, 763 F.3d at

1066 (quoting Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)). “[T]he official

must both be aware offacts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial

risk ofserious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Colwell, 763 F.3d at

1066 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837) (internal quotations marks omitted). “Deliberate

indifference ‘may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with

medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide

medical care.’” Id. at 1066 (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th

Cir. 1988)). However, a plaintiffmust allege that one or more defendants acted with

more than lack of ordinary due care. Id. at 1066 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835).

In his objection, Plaintiff only provides his own general assumptions and legal

conclusions that: 1) all Defendants were aware he had previously fallen from his assigned

upper bunk; 2) all Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent future falls

when they refused to provide him with a lower bunk chrono; and 3) all Defendants were

therefore deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Likewise, he argues

without providing any factual basis that “Defendants course oftreatment was medically

unacceptable [sic][.]” (Pl.’s Obj. at 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 III

4

3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
The Court finds Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s analysis sound. In particular, the

Report provides thorough analysis tailored to each ofthe individual Defendants that

explains in detail the insufficiency ofthe Complaint’s deliberate indifference allegations,

both in their individual and supervisory capacities as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint.

Moreover, the Report’s determinations are supported by Plaintiffs own medical records,

which he attached to his Complaint.1 In short, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs Complaint

fails to set forth facts to suggest any ofthe Defendants acted with deliberate indifference,

and incorporates by reference Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s analysis on this issue.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED

without leave to amend as to the following claims:

1. Eighth Amendment claim for denial ofPlaintiffs Health Care Appeal

against Defendant Walker;

2. Eighth Amendment claims for denial ofPlaintiffs Health Care Appeal and

deliberate indifference under a supervisory theory ofliability against

Defendant Roberts;

3. Eighth Amendment claim for denial ofPlaintiffs Health Care Appeal

against Defendant Glynn; and

4. Eighth Amendment claim for denial ofPlaintiffs Health Care Appeal

against Defendant Lewis.

Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend as to the following

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 claims:

24

25

26 i In ruling on a motion to dismiss, “courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as

well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to

dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference^]”

Tellabs, Inc. v. MakorIssues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).

27

28

5

3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant Yu;

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference under a supervisory

theory ofliability against Defendant Walker;

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference under a supervisory

theory ofliability against Defendant Glynn;

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference under a supervisory

theory ofliability against Defendant Lewis; and

Plaintiffs state law claims for medical negligence and malpractice under

California Government Code Section 845.6, inadequate medical care, and

violation ofArticle 1, Sections 15 and 17 ofthe California Constitution.

Plaintiffmay file a first amended complaint (FAC) on or before October 30,2017

that addresses the deficiencies identified in this Order and Magistrate Judge Burkhardfs

Report as to the claims Plaintiffhas been granted leave to amend. Additionally, Plaintiff

need not refile the medical records and other exhibits he included with his initial

Complaint; the Court shall incorporate them by reference in the FAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 1.

2 2.

3

4 3.

5

6 4.

7

8 5.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 DATED: September /2^*2017

mmOGpRT. BENITEZ

niteaSfates District Judge

H

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

3:16-cv-01998-BEN-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-01998-BAS-JLB Document 26 Filed 09/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6