Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00001/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00001-1/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

27

28

- 1 - 07CV0001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV0001-LAB (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

[Docket no. 10]

vs.

DAVID G. SMITH, DAVE KHATRI and

SUNIL WALIA,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff suffered a leg injury before being

incarcerated and continues to suffer leg and back problems. Defendant Smith is a physician

who treated him. The complaint was filed nunc pro tunc to December 22, 2006.

Defendant Smith moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to dismiss all claims

against him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d), this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben Brooks. On December 21, 2007, Judge Brooks issued

his report and recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending dismissing all claims against

Defendant Smith. The R&R required the parties, if they wished to objections, to serve and

file their objections no later than January 31, 2008. (R&R at 18:4–5.) The R&R also

informed them that failure to object within the time permitted might waive their appellate

rights. (Id. at 18:6–8.) Plaintiff filed his objections, to which Defendant Smith filed a reply.

Case 3:07-cv-00001-LAB-RBB Document 21 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07CV0001

 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive

further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the

parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). A party

objecting to the recommended disposition of the matter may “serve and file specific

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations,” and “a party may respond to

another party’s objections.” Rule 72(b). “[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s objections are essentially a brief restatement of his allegations. The

complaint, and exhibits submitted with it, show Defendant Smith listened to Plaintiff’s

complaints and provided Plaintiff with treatments, albeit not the treatments Plaintiff believed

he needed. Mere disagreement over which of two medically acceptable courses of

treatments should be followed cannot give rise to a claim for deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). For the most

part, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the course Defendant Smith followed was medically

unacceptable.

In at least one case, Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Smith acted in a manner that

could be considered medically unacceptable. Following surgery for removal of a plate and

screws from Plaintiff’s leg, Defendant Smith saw Plaintiff for a follow-up examination.

(Compl. at 40.) He then ordered a second follow-up examination the following month. (Id.)

Plaintiff was eventually seen eleven months later, at which time he complained of back

problems. (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff also identifies delays in receiving treatment Defendant Smith

had ordered.

In all cases, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to show Defendant Smith was deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. There is no allegation Defendant Smith intentionally

delayed treatment, or that he deliberately caused Plaintiff any harm. Some of the allegations

might support a finding of negligence; but mere negligence, even gross negligence, does not

Case 3:07-cv-00001-LAB-RBB Document 21 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 07CV0001

suffice to state a claim under § 1983 for deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 835, 839 (1994).

Plaintiff objects to two general points not addressed by the R&R. First, he says he

brought his back pain to Defendant Smith’s attention in 2000 but instead of evaluating his

back pain, Dr. Smith simply prescribed back exercises. (Obj. to R&R at 3:21–24.) He does

not reference any allegations in the complaint, but cites to an exhibit which appears to be

an informational booklet explaining to patients how to prevent a recurrence of back pain.

Whatever this allegation relates to, it falls well outside the period of in which he alleges Smith

treated him. (See Compl. at ¶ B(1) (alleging the events giving rise to his claims occurred in

2005).)

Second, Plaintiff mentions actions by Defendants Khatri and Walia. (Obj. to R&R at

2:23–26, 3:13–17.) These Defendants have not moved for dismissal, and it is unclear how

Plaintiff’s allegations concerning their actions relate to his claims against Defendant Smith.

The court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R objected to

and finds its conclusions to be correct. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore OVERRULED.

The only portion of the R&R the Court finds to be in need of modification is the standard for

motions to dismiss. The R&R cites Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 n.7 (1980) for the “no

set of facts” standard. This was originally handed down in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45–46 (1957), but this standard was recently abandoned in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007). The R&R is therefore modified to incorporate the Bell Atlantic

standard. This modification does not alter the R&R’s analysis, however. The R&R is

ADOPTED AS MODIFIED.

“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . , a pro se

litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior

to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Plaintiff has not yet had an

opportunity to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies.

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00001-LAB-RBB Document 21 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 07CV0001

For reasons explained in the R&R, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Smith are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint

remedying these deficiencies, he may do so no later than 30 calendar days from the date

this order is issued. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be complete

in itself, without reference to the original complaint. If he chooses to file an amended

complaint, he is directed to review Civil Local Rule 15.1 and to comply with its requirements.

Any claims omitted from the amended complaint will be deemed abandoned.

Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to correct the deficiencies the R&R identifies in his

claims against Defendant Smith within the time permitted, his claims against Smith will be

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00001-LAB-RBB Document 21 Filed 03/18/08 Page 4 of 4