Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00487/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00487-3/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 

3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

CDCR #J-19886, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

G. WILEY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

G. WILEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; 

[Doc. No. 134] 

DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT 

G. WILEY’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 135] 

Plaintiff Moriano Millare, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, instituted 

this civil rights action against correctional, medical, and inmate appeals officials at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s only 

remaining claim in this action is against Defendant G. Wiley, a nurse practitioner at RJD, 

for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. See Doc. No. 132. 

Defendant Wiley moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 152 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

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

Procedure 12(b)(6), see Doc. No. 134, and to strike various portions of Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Rule 12(f), see Doc. No. 135. Plaintiff filed 

responses in opposition to Wiley’s motions, to which Wiley replied. See Doc. Nos. 139, 

140, 148, 149. The Court took Wiley’s motions under submission on the written briefs 

and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 151. For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Wiley’s motion to dismiss and DENIES 

AS MOOT Wiley’s motion to strike. 

BACKGROUND1

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an inmate health care appeal against formerdefendant Dr. G. Casian. Plaintiff requested to be seen by another physician and asked 

for an MRI or CT scan, a dermatology appointment, braces for his back, neck, and ankle, 

as well as a step ladder for use accessing his upper bunk, or in the alternative, a lower 

bunk assignment. Plaintiff’s appeal bypassed the first level of review, and on July 23, 

2014, Defendant Wiley interviewed Plaintiff regarding his health care appeal against Dr. 

Casian. As a result of the interview, Defendant Wiley prescribed a topical medication to 

treat Plaintiff’s skin condition, ordered a follow-up X-ray of Plaintiff’s lower back to 

determine whether any degeneration had occurred which would require a back brace or 

other accommodation, and submitted a request for a CT scan. 

 Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the interview and its outcome. On August 13, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed a health care appeal against Defendant Wiley regarding her alleged 

misconduct during the July 23, 2014 interview. Plaintiff claimed in his appeal that Wiley 

treated him poorly, told him he had bad breath, told him to change his religion, and asked 

him to perform odd physical feats for no purpose. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant 

                                               

1

 This description of events is taken from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and the attached exhibits, 

and is not to be construed as findings of fact by the Court. However, because this case comes before the 

Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and 

must also construe the complaint, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 152 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

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

Wiley shoved him in the back and threatened to cancel his appeal if he did not cooperate 

with her instructions. 

 Based on these events, Plaintiff brings an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant Wiley alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Defendant 

Wiley moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that he cannot state a plausible Eighth Amendment 

claim against her. Defendant Wiley also moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s FAC 

pursuant to Rule 12(f), as immaterial or impertinent. 

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the 

sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiffs must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 

plausibility standard thus demands more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint “must contain allegations of 

underlying facts sufficient to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend 

itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept as true 

all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn 

from them, and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Karam v. City 

of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). The court need not take legal 

conclusions as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. 

Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Similarly, “conclusory 

allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to 

dismiss.” Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 152 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

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

Where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court must construe the 

pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 

Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of liberal construction 

is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 

(9th Cir. 1992). Where amendment of a pro se litigant’s complaint would be futile, 

denial of leave to amend is appropriate. See James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th 

Cir. 2000). 

2. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wiley violated his Eighth Amendment right to 

adequate medical care by acting deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs, to wit, a contagious skin infection and a pre-existing injury to his left hip, thigh, 

knee, shin, and ankle, as well as right shoulder and cervical spine conditions. 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment 

and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity 

and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 

404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir. 1968)). “[D]eliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 

illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.” Id. at 105. A prison official 

violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the objective 

requirement that the deprivation is “sufficiently serious,” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); and (2) the 

subjective requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” 

Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298). 

 Even assuming Plaintiff’s allegations establish the objective component of an 

Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that 

Defendant Wiley acted with “deliberate indifference” to Plaintiff’s health or safety. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303). To the contrary, 

Plaintiff’s FAC and the attached exhibits demonstrate that Defendant Wiley interviewed 

Plaintiff as part of the appeals process, prescribed topical skin medication, and ordered 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 152 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 

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

follow-up X-rays and scans of Plaintiff’s lower back and left ankle. The Constitution 

does not require that prisoners be given every medical treatment they desire. See Jackson 

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). And based on these facts, Plaintiff once 

again fails to “show that the course of treatment [Defendant] chose was medically 

unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that [she] chose this course in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Id. 

In sum, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendant Wiley acted 

with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The Court previously identified 

the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s claim, but he has failed to cure those deficiencies. As such, 

the Court finds that amendment under the circumstances would be futile, and therefore 

unwarranted. See Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1258 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (recognizing “[f]utility of amendment” as a proper basis for dismissal without 

leave to amend)). 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Wiley’s motion to dismiss 

and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Wiley’s motion to strike. The Court DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Wiley with prejudice. 

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Wiley 

and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 11, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00487-MMA-NLS Document 152 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5