Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1086 MCE DAD P

vs.

M. PENNER, M.D., et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. The matter

is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 8,

Rule 12(b)(6), or non-enumerated Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or for a

more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants’ motion was filed on January 17, 2006. Plaintiff did not respond to

the motion despite the requirements of the court’s November 10, 2005 order and Local Rule 78-

230(m). On April 7, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to show good cause for his failure to

respond to the motion and to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff did not

file any response to the order to show cause. On May 4, 2006, the undersigned recommended

that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and rules and for failure to

prosecute this action. Plaintiff filed timely objections but did not attach a proper proof of service

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 9
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

2

and did not include a copy of the opposition he served on defendants’ counsel on April 26, 2006. 

On June 15, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to re-file his objections with all exhibits and a proper

proof of service. Plaintiff has complied with the June 15, 2006 order. Plaintiff’s opposition is

now before the court as Exhibit A to the objections re-filed on June 28, 2006 (Document #21).

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s belatedly filed response to the court’s order to

show cause and plaintiff’s re-filed objections to the May 4, 2006 findings and recommendations,

the undersigned will discharge the pending order to show cause and vacate the pending findings

and recommendations. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), defendants’ time for filing and

serving a reply to plaintiff’s opposition expired on May 4, 2006. Defendants’ motion is

submitted for decision.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is confined at California State Prison, Sacramento, and was confined at

that institution at the times relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff has sued J. Turella, D.O., and M.

Penner, M.D.

I. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s pleading consists of a form complaint and exhibits. The statement of

claim set forth on the form is as follows:

On or about 12-01-03 I fractured my finger on my left hand. I had

an x-ray that confirmed it on 12-02-03 and I was issued some pain

pills Vicodins for 5 days. I was recommended by Dr. Penner to see

a physician in Manteca Calif. However I was never treated

immediately after my injury. I sent in numerous medical slips at

this prison New Folsom concerning injury and pain. On 5-13-04 I

was finally seen for my fracture that was old. The orthopedist at

UCD verified I only had 59 % flexion capability and still had mild

tenderness and swelling on my fractured finger. Dr. Penner and J.

Turella D.O. had treated me unfairly and medical neglect. I did not

get surgery done until late August on or about 8-23-04 however my

finger is to this date poorly deformed and not 100% because of

inadequate treatment.

(Compl. at 3.)

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 9
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

3

Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

I respectfully request this court to grant payment for all my pain

and suffering in the amount of 250,000 thousand from each

defendant and 1,000,000 million by punitive damages be awarded

for all emotional, physical pain and suffering. That no more

neglect and inadequate care be inflicted upon me again at this

prison New Folsom.

(Id.)

Attached to plaintiff’s complaint is a copy of an inmate appeal dated February 23,

2004, in which plaintiff stated that he was sent to a doctor in Manteca on January 5, 2004, but

was not treated because his x-ray had not been sent with him and he was taken to an office that

“doesn’t do finger.” Plaintiff stated that he turned in numerous medical slips for treatment and

for pain relievers, that he was suffering excruciating pain, and that his requests for treatment had

not been met. Plaintiff asked to see an orthopedic consultant immediately and to receive pain

relievers.

The appeal form bears a notation indicating that plaintiff’s request was deemed

not emergent. At the first formal level, plaintiff’s appeal was partially granted on March 22,

2004, by defendant Penner. Defendant Penner noted that an orthopedic consult ordered on

December 26, 2003, was still pending, that plaintiff’s pain medication had been changed from

Motrin to Naprosyn on March 5, 2004, and that when plaintiff was seen on March 17, 2004, he

stated that the Naprosyn was providing much better pain relief.

Plaintiff requested second-level review, stating that he was dissatisfied with

defendant Penner’s determination that 70% flexion capability was not an emergency. Plaintiff

asserted that he had less than70% flexion capability and his finger was healing in a deformed

manner. The appeal was partially granted at the second level on April 26, 2004, on the basis of

defendant Turella’s review of plaintiff’s medical records. Defendant Turella agreed with

defendant Penner that plaintiff’s case did not qualify as an emergency. Defendant Turella noted

that plaintiff was scheduled for orthopedic follow up in May 2004. He also noted plaintiff’s

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 9
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

4

statement that the Naprosyn was providing adequate pain relief. Defendant Turella remarked that

it was “[i]nteresting to note than when [plaintiff’s] finger was x-rayed on December 2, 2003, the

result was consistent with that of a subacute fracture and not of a fresh injury.” Defendant

Turella did not address plaintiff’s assertion that his finger was healing in a deformed manner.

Plaintiff sought third-level review on the ground that he had been seen at UCD on

May 13, 2004, and the doctor told him he had only 59% flexion capability, his finger would

never be “100%” because of the time lapse and lack of treatment, and his finger would improve

only with surgery. The appeal was denied at the director’s level on August 12, 2004, based on

findings that plaintiff had received adequate medical care and was scheduled for surgery on his

hand during August 2004.

II. Procedural History

On July 18, 2005, the undersigned determined that plaintiff’s complaint appears to

state cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). On

November 10, 2005, the United States Marshal was directed to serve the complaint on defendants

Penner and Turella. Both defendants waived service of summons. The motion to dismiss now

before the court was filed on January 17, 2006. The court has not yet issued a discovery order or

a scheduling order.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to unenumerated Rule 12(b)

on the ground that plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with regard to his claims

against defendant Turella.

Plaintiff’s opposition contains a notice of dismissal of defendant Turella. Because

the defendants have not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff may

dismiss defendant Turella pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is moot with regard to the exhaustion issue.

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 4 of 9
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

5

II. Failure to State Jurisdictional Basis

Defendants acknowledge that plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging inadequate

medical treatment for a fractured finger and admit that it appears plaintiff seeks to invoke

jurisdiction based on the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to a serious medical

need. Defendants argue, however, that plaintiff’s failure to cite the Eighth Amendment or any

other federal constitutional provision, law, or treaty requires dismissal of the complaint pursuant

to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants reason that the complaint does not

provide a short and plain statement of the ground upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends

and therefore fails to state a claim on which this court has jurisdiction.

In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff argues that the court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Rule 8 sets forth the general rules of pleading for civil actions in federal district

courts. The Rule provides as follows:

A pleading which sets a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short

and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s

jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Rule also contains a guideline for the construction of pleadings: “All

pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f).

The pro se plaintiff in this case has presented his claims on a form designated for

use by a prisoner filing a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first page

of the form identifies the pleading as a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to Rule 8(f), plaintiff’s use of the form complaint should be construed as a short and

plain statement that the claims for relief are civil rights claims arising under § 1983. Federal

district courts have jurisdiction over § 1983 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not fail to state a jurisdictional basis, and defendants’ motion to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 8 should be denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 5 of 9
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

6

III. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted

Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims

upon which relief can be granted. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s allegations suggest nothing

more than mere indifference, negligence, or medical malpractice rather than the substantial

indifference required to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Defendants argue that mere delay

cannot constitute deliberate indifference if the delay did not lead to injury and that a prisoner’s

mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support a claim of deliberate

indifference. Defendants assert that plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that his fractured

finger constituted a serious medical need and has also failed to allege facts showing that the

defendants had culpable minds.

In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff argues that his complaint states

claims for damages and injunctive relief against prison doctors for violating his right to be free

from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff argues

that defendant Penner delayed medical treatment for plaintiff’s broken finger, that plaintiff was

not seen by an orthopedist for six months, and that he did not receive surgery in a timely manner. 

Plaintiff contends that the delay resulted in deformity and deprived him of a normal functioning

finger and hand. Plaintiff argues that his severely fractured finger presented a serious medical

need and, because of defendant Penner’s deliberate indifference, plaintiff suffered months of pain

and did not have the full use of his hand for almost a year, which affected his daily activities.

A motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the sufficiency of the

pleading. For purposes of ruling on such a motion, the court must take as true the material facts 

alleged in the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The court must liberally construe the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins, 395 U.S. at 421; Meek v. County

of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999). Pro se pleadings must be held to a less stringent

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

(1972), and the court must liberally construe a pro se litigant’s inartful pleading, Ortez v.

Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.

1981).

In the present case, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s complaint in July 2005

and found cognizable claims for relief. The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint a

second time and again finds that the pro se pleading states cognizable claims.

Defendants’ assessment of plaintiff’s claims appears to be based solely on the

allegations set forth on the form. However, the exhibits attached to a complaint are a part thereof

and may be considered in determining whether dismissal is proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c);

Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995); Hal Roach Studios v.

Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). The allegations and

information contained in plaintiff’s inmate appeal, including the responses at each level, suggest

more than mere indifference or negligence. Plaintiff’s allegations of delay, in both his statement

of claim and his appeal, are accompanied by allegations of injury caused by the delay. Plaintiff’s

allegations do not reflect mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment, or a layman’s demand

for the treatment of his choice. Plaintiff’s allegations reflect a medical need that was causing him

pain and depriving him of full use of his hand, while defendants were providing no treatment at

all or treatment so delayed that permanent injury resulted.

Construing plaintiff’s pro se complaint in the light most favorable to him and

resolving all doubts in his favor, the undersigned finds that plaintiff may be able to prove facts in

support of his claims that will entitle him to relief against defendant Penner. Plaintiff’s pro se

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

IV. More Definite Statement

Defendants argue that, if the complaint is not dismissed, plaintiff should be

required to provide a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Defendants view the complaint as so vague and ambiguous that they cannot

reasonably frame a responsive pleading. Defendants seek more details concerning the acts and

omissions of each defendant and request that plaintiff be required to “clarify the type of relief

requested as to defendants.” Defendants suggest that the parties and the court will benefit from a

more definite statement, as the need for discovery may be reduced and court appearances should

be reduced or eliminated.

In his opposition, plaintiff acknowledges the limitations of his legal knowledge

and states that, if given the chance to amend his complaint, he will attempt to make sure the facts

are more clear and understandable.

Rule 12(e) permits a party to move for a more definite statement “[i]f a pleading is

so vague that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(e). The Rule is designed to strike at unintelligibility, rather than want of detail. Woods v.

Reno Commodities, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 574, 580 (D. Nev. 1984). It is not the function of

pleadings in federal courts to provide all the details of the plaintiff’s case. Boxall v. Sequoia

Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F. Supp. 1104, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1979). If a pleading meets the

requirements of Rule 8 and fairly notifies the opposing party of the nature of the claim, a motion

for more definite statement should not be granted. Nelson v. Quimby Island Reclamation Dist.,

491 F. Supp. 1364, 1384-85 (N.D. Cal. 1980).

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s complaint, the undersigned finds that the pro se

pleading is not impermissibly vague or ambiguous with regard to plaintiff’s claims or his request

for relief. As set forth supra, plaintiff’s pleading provides a short and plain statement of his

claims. Defendant Penner should be able to frame a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s allegations

of inadequate medical care. The motion for more definite statement should be denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court’s April 7, 2006 order to show cause is discharged;

2. This court’s May 4, 2006 findings and recommendations are vacated;

3. Defendant Turella is dismissed from this action pursuant to plaintiff’s notice of

voluntary dismissal;

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s January 17, 2006 motion to dismiss be denied; and

2. Defendant Penner be directed to file an answer within the time provided by

Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file and

serve written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to objections

shall be filed and served within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: July 10, 2006.

DAD:13

brow1086.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 07/11/06 Page 9 of 9