Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01726/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01726-2/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

DANNY CAESAR, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01726-LJO-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 11.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Danny Caesar (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

October 28, 2013. (Doc. 1.) 

The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on 

March 17, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. 

(Doc. 10.) On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now 

before the court for screening. (Doc. 11.)

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). 

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 7
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

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). 

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). 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 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, 

California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR), where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Jeffrey Beard (Director, CDCR), Ms. Lopez (Chief Medical 

Officer-KVSP), Ismael Patel (Primary Care Physician-KVSP), and Kongara Nanditha (Primary 

Care Physician-KVSP) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants were employed by the CDCR

at KVSP at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow.

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff has suffered from a permanent degenerative medical condition known as 

“frostbite residuals,” since 1976. First Amended Complaint at 3 ¶IV. Since his initial injury, 

Plaintiff’s medical condition has worsened. Plaintiff suffers pain during prolonged standing 

and walking, and he was issued a wheelchair at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

Since his arrival at KVSP, Plaintiff’s medical treatment has changed. Officials propose 

to take away his wheelchair and other ADA protections necessary for daily functioning. Dr. 

Patel denied Plaintiff access to a neurologist, the most qualified doctor to treat his condition, 

claiming he can diagnose Plaintiff’s diseased nervous system better than a neurologist. Dr. 

Patel also denied Plaintiff the use of his wheelchair.

Plaintiff filed two inmate appeals against Dr. Patel, resulting in the denial of access to a 

neurologist and the use of a wheelchair by Director Jeffrey Beard. 

Dr. Kongara requested and obtained the approval of Chief Medical Officer Lopez to 

take away Plaintiff’s permanent chrono for a wheelchair and various other ADA protections. 

Defendants all acted with negligence and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment.

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief.

IV. PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH AMENDMENT 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) 

(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.

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 

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 7
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

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 

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[E]ven gross negligence 

is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 

F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

///

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 7
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

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 chosen 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).

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a permanent degenerative medical condition, 

frostbite residuals, which causes him pain during prolonged standing and walking. This 

allegation is sufficient to meet the objective serious medical need standard. However, Plaintiff 

fails to allege facts demonstrating that any of the Defendants acted against him with deliberate 

indifference. Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate more than a difference of opinion 

between Plaintiff and his doctors, whether Plaintiff’s treatment should include access to a 

wheelchair or a visit to a neurologist. Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that any of the 

Defendants acted against him, or failed to act, while knowing of and disregarding a substantial 

risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable medical claim.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to state an ADA1claim, the treatment, or lack of 

treatment, concerning Plaintiff=s medical condition does not provide a basis upon which to 

impose liability under the ADA. Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 882 (8th Cir. 2005) 

(medical treatment decisions not a basis for RA or ADA claims); Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of 

Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (medical decisions not ordinarily within scope of 

ADA or RA); Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (AThe ADA does not create 

a remedy for medical malpractice.@). Plaintiff refers to his intermittent use of a wheelchair, but 

does not specifically allege facts indicting that he is a qualified individual with a disability, or 

what specific service, program or activity he was denied based upon that disability. Plaintiff 

may not assert his list of complaints regarding conditions of confinement under the umbrella of 

the ADA. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state an ADA claim.

 

1 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 7
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

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Beard addressed Plaintiff’s prison appeals, denying his

requests for a wheelchair and an outside neurologist. Generally, denying a prisoner’s 

administrative appeal does not cause or contribute to the underlying violation. George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Because prison 

administrators cannot willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by 

subordinates, Jett, 439 F.3d at 1098, there may be limited circumstances in which those 

involved in reviewing an administrative appeal can be held liable under section 1983, but that 

circumstance has not been presented here. The mere existence of an administrative appeals 

process does not create a protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that 

he was denied a particular result. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann 

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff fails to 

state a claim against defendant Beard.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. Plaintiff has now filed two

complaints without stating any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. 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). 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

2. This dismissal count as a STRIKE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).

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, Plaintiff may file 

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

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

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

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 7