Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01288/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01288-9/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

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

ALLEN FOSTER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. BHAMBI, M.D., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 25.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY DUE IN THIRTY 

DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Allen Foster ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on July 20, 2010. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened the Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on November 30, 2011, dismissing the 

Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 10.) On January 24, 2012, 

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) On June 4, 2012, the Court dismissed 

the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 20.) On 

June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 22.) On March 28, 2013, 

the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for violation of Local Rule 220, with 

leave to amend. (Doc. 24.) On April 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, 

which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 25.)

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 6
2

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

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). 

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915A(b)(1),(2). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

III. SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in 

San Diego, California. The events at issue in the Third Amended Complaint allegedly occurred 

at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there, 

and Bakersfield Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Bhambi (M.D.), and 

Bakersfield Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff’s allegations consist of the following, in their 

entirety:

“On approximately 9-22-06, the Defendant Doctor Bhambi, acted 

with Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs 

forcing Plaintiff to undergo a medical procedure (implanting 

stents), a procedure that has caused Plaintiff to suffer from 

significant injury, unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”

(Third Amd Cmp, Doc. 25 at 3 ¶IV.) Plaintiff requests monetary damages as relief.

IV. PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL CLAIM

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by 

the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 

redress.

 

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 6
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

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

Under federal notice pleading, a complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2). A complaint must contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ 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)). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim 

that is plausible on its face.=@ Id. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id. at 678.

A[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show >deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.=@ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)). 

The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>a serious 

medical need= by demonstrating that >failure to treat a prisoner=s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,=@ and (2) Athe 

defendant=s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations 

omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner=s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen 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. Where a prisoner is alleging a 

delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the 

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 6
4

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

prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at 

1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 

1985)). 

ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official must not only >be aware of the 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,= but 

that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but 

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the 

risk.=@ Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 

2002)). AA showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a 

constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060. A[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.@ Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin, 974 

F.2d 1050, overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc., 104 F.3d at 1136 (en banc) 

(internal quotations omitted)). A[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 

constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 

1990)).

 AA difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities 

regarding treatment does not give rise to a ' 1983 claim.@ Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 

1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff Amust show that the course 

of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . 

that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff=s health.@ 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Discussion

Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment medical claim under § 1983 against any 

defendant. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give 

fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community 

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some 

degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his claim. Id. The 

court finds Plaintiff’s allegations in the Third Amended Complaint to be vague and conclusory. 

Plaintiff has not established that he had a serious medical need, nor has Plaintiff made factual 

allegations demonstrating that any defendant knew of an excessive risk to his health and 

consciously disregarded the risk while acting or failing to act. Plaintiff fails to describe how 

defendants personally acted against him with a purposeful act or failure to respond to his pain 

or medical need. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint must be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The court finds that Plaintiff=s Third Amended Complaint fails to state any claims upon 

which relief can be granted under ' 1983 against any of the defendants. In this action, the court 

previously granted Plaintiff multiple opportunities to amend the complaint, with ample 

guidance by the court. Plaintiff has now filed four deficient complaints. The court finds that 

the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore 

further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A 

and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the Athreestrikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th 

Cir. 2011).

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

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 6
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

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-01288-AWI-GSA Document 29 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 6