Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01834/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01834-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; DR. 

MICHAEL; DR. RICHARD BAUER; and 

DOES 1 through 20, 

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1834-TLN-CKD

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on motions to dismiss by Defendants Dr. Robert Fox (ECF 

No. 37), County of Sacramento, and Dr. Richard Bauer (ECF No. 38). Defendants seek to 

dismiss Plaintiff Michael Shannon’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No. 35.) For 

the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART.

FACTS

The Court summarizes the allegations in the SAC as follows. Plaintiff injured his left foot 

by stepping on a rock in November 2011. Plaintiff underwent surgery in July 2011 which 

involved putting 4 screws and a 2-by-4 inch plate on his left foot. (SAC at 12.) His doctor from 

the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”) Hospital “advised him via letter that he should receive a 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 8
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

walking hard cast which should be non-weight bearing.” (SAC at 2.) Plaintiff became 

incarcerated, first at the Sacramento County Jail in September 2011. While incarcerated, Plaintiff 

gave the letter from the VA doctor to his treating doctors at the jail, including Defendant Dr. Fox. 

(SAC at 2.) Plaintiff also states that Dr. Fox was a primary doctor treating and responsible for 

supervising Plaintiff’s care. (SAC at 5.)

On September 7, 2011, Defendant Dr. Bauer “gave the [P]laintiff a pair of scissors and 

advised him to cut his own cast off and walk around the room without a support boot, a cane or 

any support whatsoever. Dr. Bauer advised Plaintiff that he did not need any support for his 

foot.” (SAC at 3.) Plaintiff had also brought a “Cam boot” and a “bone stimulator machine” into 

County jail, given to him by VA doctors. After Plaintiff took off his cast, Dr. Bauer told Plaintiff 

he did not need either of these items, and that Plaintiff should discontinue use of his cane. (SAC 

at 12–13.) Plaintiff was then transferred to Rio Consumnes Correctional Center, where the 

hardware in his foot fell apart and his foot became infected. (SAC at 3.)

Plaintiff was transferred in October 2011 to the Deuel Vocational Institute. Beginning in 

October 2011 through April 2012 Plaintiff requested medical attention in jail “several times 

weekly” and such requests were ignored. While incarcerated, Plaintiff also filed appeals 

regarding denial of proper medical care which were rejected. (SAC at 2–4.) Plaintiff requested 

surgery to fix his foot in February 2012; that request was denied without explanation. (SAC at 4.) 

Dr. Fox was responsible to some degree for the “repeated and consistent denial of Plaintiff’s 

requests for medical care” during Plaintiff’s incarceration. (Pl.’s Opp., ECF No. 40 at 2.) 

Defendant Dr. Fox also granted Plaintiff’s request for pain medication, but denied Plaintiff a 

“walker” to alleviate Plaintiff’s low back pain via letter dated December 28, 2011. (SAC at 3.) 

Following his release from custody, Plaintiff consulted another VA doctor who gave his 

opinion that Plaintiff had “lost 30% disability of [his] left foot because of the improper treatment 

[given] by all defendants.” (SAC at 13.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The SAC was brought on August 25, 2014. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, Plaintiff 

filed oppositions and Defendants filed replies. The matter was submitted without oral argument 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 8
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

on October 20, 2014. (See ECF Nos. 35–50.) The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s 

complaints in full on Defendants’ motions. (See ECF Nos. 22, 34.) 

ANALYSIS

The Court construes the SAC to assert: 1) various state law claims, predicated on 

negligence; and 2) various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

I. State law claims

Under the California Tort Claims (“CTCA”), a suit for money or damages may only be 

brought against a public entity once a written claim has been presented to the entity and the claim 

has been acted upon or rejected. Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4. “Timely compliance with the claim 

filing requirements and rejection of the claim by the governmental agency must be pleaded in a 

complaint in order to state a cause of action.” Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp. 69 Cal. 

App. 3d 350, 355 (9th Cir. 1977). If a cause of action against a public entity is barred by the 

claims statute, an action against the public entity’s employees, based on the same injury, is also 

barred. Cal. Gov. Code § 950.2; see also Watson v. State of California, 21 Cal. App. 4th 838, 843 

(1993) (“It is well settled that a government claim must be filed with the public entity before a 

tort action is brought against the public entity or public employee”). After a claim is rejected, an 

individual has six months from the date the notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail 

to file a court action. Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6. 

To the FAC, Plaintiff attached a copy of the government claim form he submitted in 

October 2012 regarding the allegations above. That claim was made against the City of Citrus 

Heights, the Citrus Heights Police Department, the Sacramento County Sherriff’s office, 

Sacramento County, the Sacramento County Jail, and “Dr. Robert Fox”. That claim was 

presented to the City of Citrus Heights and rejected on October 17, 2012.2 Plaintiff alleges that 

 

1 The SAC specifically states: Count 1, Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deprivation of Civil Rights; Count 2, 

Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Detention and Confinement without Providing Proper and Necessary Medical Care; 

Count 3, Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Civ. Code § 3333, et seq – Negligence in Medical Treatment of the 

Plaintiff; and Count 4, Violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Neglecting to Prevent Permanent Injury by Denial of Proper 

Medical Care.

2 The Court was in error in its previous ruling (ECF No. 34 at 3) when it stated Plaintiff had not explained the 

outcome of this claim; Plaintiff had attached a copy of the claim rejection letter, dated October 17, 2012, to the FAC. 

(ECF No. 23 at 14.) It appears when Plaintiff alleges that Sacramento County rejected his claim, he is referring to his 

rejection letter from the City of Citrus Heights. Is not clear what authority the City of Citrus Heights has regarding 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 8
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

“Sacramento County mailed their Notice of Rejection ... to the Plaintiff on Nov. 2, 2012.” (SAC 

at 1.) Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 24, 2013, which would be outside the six month 

statute of limitations, Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6. (See Not. of Removal, ECF No. 3.) Based on his 

allegations Plaintiff does not meet the statute of limitations for bringing his state law claims, thus, 

the claims in the SAC are dismissed.

II. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s complaint as an attempt to state allegations of deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. For clarity, the Court states in full the guiding framework set forth by the Supreme Court 

for such claims:

We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain,” proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is 

true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in 

their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in 

intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or 

intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. 

Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's 

serious illness or injury states a cause of action under [§] 1983.

...

This conclusion does not mean, however, that every claim by a 

prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment states 

a violation of the Eighth Amendment. An accident, although it may 

produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be 

characterized as wanton infliction of unnecessary pain.

...

Similarly, in the medical context, an inadvertent failure to provide 

adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute “an unnecessary 

and wanton infliction of pain” or to be “repugnant to the conscience 

of mankind.” Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent 

in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid 

claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. 

Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 

merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a 

cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions 

sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend 

 

Plaintiff’s claim as it relates Sacramento County.

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 8
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

“evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–06 (1976) (internal citations, alterations, footnotes omitted). 

B. Monell liability 

“[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its 

employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether 

made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official 

policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Monell v. 

Dep.’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

Here, the relevant allegations are that Plaintiff requested medical care several times per 

week, beginning on October 19, 2011, and continuing through April 17, 2012, and those requests 

went unheeded by medical personnel attending to Plaintiff while incarcerated. (SAC at 2.) What 

medical attention Plaintiff did receive was inadequate, including the treatment and/or evaluation 

given by Dr. Bauer and Dr. Fox. Plaintiff has attached several dozen pages of documentation of 

his medical requests, which appear to be mostly California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) 

paperwork. (ECF No. 36, Ex.’s 1–3.) In summary Plaintiff alleges: “The 50 or more requests for 

medical care and the lack of care to the plaintiff and the ongoing refusal of the County of 

Sacrament[o] and the California Department of Corrections to provide adequate medical care to 

Plaintiff are direct evidence of the ‘policy, custom, and practice’ on the part of the County of 

Sacramento and the California Department of Corrections to take steps to address the serious 

medical needs of the plaintiff.” (SAC at 2.)

It appears that Plaintiff was incarcerated at County-run jails – the Sacramento County Jail 

and the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center – until some point in October 2011 when he was 

transferred to the state-run Deuel Vocational Institute. Defendant Sacramento County argues that 

the only medical documentation relevant to Plaintiff’s time in County jails shows that Plaintiff 

was medically screened at intake; saw numerous medical providers between September 1, 2011 

and September 9, 2011; and Plaintiff had an x-ray of his foot on September 14, 2011. (ECF No. 

36, Ex. 1 at 3–5.) Defendant Bauer therefore moves to dismiss claims against the County on the 

basis that Plaintiff’s allegations of an “ongoing refusal” of adequate medical care are mostly 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 5 of 8
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

directed at the State of California. 

Plaintiff does not respond to this argument. Because it appears that most of the 

documentation Plaintiff does attach is CDC paperwork produced after he was transferred from 

County custody, and because Plaintiff does not plead non-conclusory allegations of an official 

policy or custom that is evidenced by his treatment while in County custody, Plaintiff has not 

adequately pled section 1983 claims against the County. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against 

Sacramento County are dismissed.

C. Defendants Dr. Bauer and Dr. Fox3

As stated above, the allegations in the SAC against Defendant Dr. Bauer are that on 

September 7, 2011, Dr. Bauer “gave the [P]laintiff a pair of scissors and advised him to cut his 

own cast off and walk around the room without a support boot, a cane or any support whatsoever. 

Dr. Bauer advised Plaintiff that he did not need any support for his foot.” (SAC at 3.) Plaintiff 

had also brought a “Cam boot” and a “bone stimulator machine” into County jail, given to him by 

VA doctors. After Plaintiff took off his cast, Dr. Bauer told Plaintiff he did not need either of 

these items, and that Plaintiff should discontinue use of his cane. (SAC at 12–13.) Dr. Bauer’s 

medical advice and treatment were contrary to the instructions given by Plaintiff’s VA doctor. 

After being transferred to Rio Consumnes Correctional Center, the hardware in Plaintiff’s foot 

fell apart, causing the foot to become infected. (SAC at 3.) 

The allegations in the SAC against Dr. Fox are that Plaintiff gave Dr. Fox a letter from his 

VA doctor stating that Plaintiff should receive a walking hard cast which should be non-weight 

bearing. Dr. Fox denied Plaintiff a walker. Plaintiff also states that Dr. Fox was a primary doctor 

treating and responsible for supervising Plaintiff’s care. (SAC at 2–3, 5.)

These allegations in the SAC are largely the same as those in prior complaints, except the 

instant SAC also contains a detailed declaration from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has attached 

documentation showing that he consistently sought medical care, which was allegedly inadequate. 

Defendants take issue with Plaintiff’s interpretation of this attached documentation, but the Court 

 

3 The Court has previously construed Plaintiffs’ claims to be brought against Dr. Fox and Dr. Bauer in their 

individual capacities. Plaintiff does not appear to take issue with this interpretation. 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 6 of 8
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

7

declines to conduct the more thorough factual consideration that would occur in resolving a 

motion for summary judgment.

Simply put, the allegations are that Plaintiff had surgery on his foot prior to incarceration; 

he was wearing a cast when he became incarcerated; he communicated his prior medical advice to 

his physicians while incarcerated, which went unheeded; due to their indifference, the hardware 

in his foot fell apart; and he is now permanently disabled. The Court acknowledges Defendants’ 

position that such allegations may be akin to those of malpractice or negligence, which are not 

actionable under an Eighth Amendment / Section 1983 action. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06. 

However, in light of the more detailed information provided in the SAC and supporting exhibits, 

and drawing the inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff adequately states a claim 

for “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” under the Eighth Amendment and Section 

1983. Id. at 106.

The Court further notes, as a reference point, the following authorities cited by 

Defendants: Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) ; McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 

1050, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 1992); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242–43 

(9th Cir. 2010); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); and Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 

609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). Factual differences aside, all of these decisions were issued 

in full or in part at the district court level pursuant to motions for summary judgment. The Court 

views the present set of facts to constitute a plausible claim to relief if drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, 

and to give Defendants fair notice of the claims so that they may defend themselves effectively. 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The factual inquiry Defendants seek is more 

suitable at the summary judgment phase. 

D. Conclusion

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as 

follows:

 The Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim under the Eight Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, against Defendants Dr. Fox. and Dr. Bauer. The Court does not find Plaintiff 

states additional claims under other Constitutional provisions that are referenced in the 

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 7 of 8
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

8

SAC, including the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1985, 1986, 1988, because Plaintiff does not plead an adequate factual basis or 

explain the legal grounding for bringing such claims. Because Plaintiff has now failed 

three times to provide an adequate factual basis for bringing separate federal claims 

apart from his Eighth Amendment/Section 1983 claim, such claims are dismissed with 

prejudice. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809–10 (9th Cir. 

1988) (“Repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed is 

another valid reason for a district court to deny a party leave to amend”). 

 This Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaints insofar as they requested 

punitive damages. In light of the more detailed information provided in the SAC and 

supporting exhibits, and drawing the inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the Court does 

not dismiss the SAC insofar as it makes a request for punitive damages. 

 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant County of 

Sacramento are dismissed with leave to amend one final time.

 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s claims under state law are dismissed with 

leave to amend one final time.

Plaintiff may file and serve a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of entry of this 

order. Defendants may file and serve a responsive pleading within 30 days of service of the Third 

Amended Complaint. 

Dated: October 27, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01834-TLN-CKD Document 52 Filed 10/28/15 Page 8 of 8