Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990-10/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

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT 

BROOKS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM BE 

DENIED

(Doc. 55)

OBJECTION DEADLINE: THIRTY DAYS

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 25, 2011. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, against 

Defendants Peppercorn, Brooks, and Yu for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care 

under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Docs. 38, 39.) The events at 

issue in this action occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”) in July and 

August 2012. 

On May 14, 2014, Defendant M. Brooks filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 55.) Plaintiff filed an 

 

1 Defendants Peppercorn, Brooks, and Yu are each represented by separate counsel. This findings and 

recommendations addresses only Defendant Brooks’ pending motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 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

opposition on May 29, 2014, and Defendant Brooks filed a reply on June 6, 2014. (Docs. 63, 69.) 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a supporting declaration on June 16, 2014, which is not considered 

given the procedural posture of this case, discussed in section II, and courts’ general disinclination 

to permit surreplies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Local Rule 230(l); Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 

REC TAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 

LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). (Doc. 72.) 

Defendant Brooks’ motion has been submitted upon the record without oral argument 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and for the reasons which follow, the Court recommends the 

motion be denied.

II. 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 

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 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 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

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). 

III. Discussion

A. Screening

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint was screened on February 6, 

2014, and the Court found it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 

Brooks. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In as much as the legal standard for screening and for 12(b)(6) 

motions is the same, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112, the Court generally views 

subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motions with disfavor, see Ingle v. Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Thomas v. Hickman, No. CV F 06-0215 AWI SMS, 2008 WL 2233566, at *2-3 (E.D. 

Cal. May 28, 2008), and the present motion is no exception. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint is a study in brevity, the Court will address Defendant Brooks’ 

arguments regarding the perceived deficiencies. In doing so, it limits its review to the four corners 

of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at

910; Schneider, 151 F.3d at 1197 n.1.

B. State Action

Defendant argues first that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to allege facts 

sufficient to support an inference that she was acting under color of state law. This argument is 

lacks merit.

“To state a claim under [section] 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right 

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged 

deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250 (1988) (citations omitted); accord 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). “[G]enerally, a public employee acts under color of 

state law while acting in [her] official capacity or while exercising [her] responsibilities pursuant 

to state law.” West, 487 U.S. at 50. 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 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

In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brooks is a dietician 

employed at CSP-Corcoran, which is a state prison. In as much as Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Brooks is employed at a state prison as a dietician and he alleges facts indicating that the actions 

complained of occurred within the context of Defendant’s duties as a state prison dietician, the 

Court finds the advancement of Defendant’s argument perplexing. West, 487 U.S. at 49-50; 

McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000). 

C. Deliberate Indifference

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting an inference that she 

acted with deliberate indifference. This argument is also rejected.

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 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 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). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that he has ulcerative colitis and celiac disease, which cause him 

bloody diarrhea, weight loss, and stomach cramps on a daily basis suffices, at the pleading stage, 

to support the existence of an objectively serious medical need. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 

1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

With respect to the subjective element of his claim, 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). 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 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 allegations taken as true, Silva, 658 F.3d at 1105, indicate that (1) Defendant Brooks 

knew of his medical condition but discontinued his special diet despite knowing that he suffered 

from bleeding diarrhea on a daily basis, and (2) Plaintiff’s medical condition worsened as a result 

of Defendant Brooks’ action, Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. While a mere 

difference of opinion between Plaintiff and Defendant Brooks regarding appropriate medical care 

will not support a claim of deliberate indifference, Snow, 681 F.3d 987; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at

1122-23, at the pleading stage, Plaintiff must be afforded the benefit of any doubt, Hebbe, 627 

F.3d at 341-42, and his allegations, although minimal, indicate (1) Defendant Brooks’ knowledge

of his serious medical needs, including knowledge of ongoing bleeding diarrhea, and (2) harm 

resulting from her decision to discontinue his existing medical diet, Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

2

 

Plaintiff is at least entitled to proceed past the pleading stage.

D. Punitive Damages

Finally, Defendant Brooks moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. 

The federal system is one of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and Plaintiff is not limited to the 

relief sought in his pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Assuming this case proceeds to the liability 

phase, punitive damages are appropriate should Plaintiff prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that a defendant’s conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or . . . involves 

reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others,” Smith v. Wade, 461 

U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625 (1986), and acts or omissions which are malicious, wanton, or 

oppressive support an award of punitive damages, Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807-08 (9th Cir. 

2005). It would be premature for the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages at the 

pleading stage, and it declines to make that recommendation.

IV. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant Brooks’ 

motion to dismiss, filed on May 14, 2014, be DENIED.

 

2 What Defendant Brooks actually knew or should have known are not issues subject to resolution at the pleading 

stage. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 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

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. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 83 Filed 12/12/14 Page 6 of 6