Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01966-3/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

BRUCE BOLIAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IGBINOSA, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Bruce Bolian (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action on October 27, 2014. The matter was transferred to this Court on December 10, 2014. On 

June 9, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 17.) 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on June 22, 2015, is currently before the Court for 

screening. 

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 5
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

A complaint must contain “a 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 “[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)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 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). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); 

Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility 

that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short 

of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner. The events in the amended complaint are alleged to 

have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Dr. Igbinosa; (2) Officer 

S. Mischaud; (3) Officer Carlos; (4) Sergeant R. Velasco; and (5) Nurse Belantes.

Plaintiff alleges: On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff was called to report to the F-Facility Clinic. 

He was approached by Officer Mischaud, who wanted Plaintiff’s wheelchair. Nurse Belantes 

also said to get out of the wheelchair. At that time, Dr. Igbinosa’s door was open. Plaintiff said

to her that he could not walk, she knew his medical condition, and to please inform other staff 

about his physical condition. She stated that she was not going to get involved with officers. 

Thereafter, Officer Carlos asked if Plaintiff heard Officer Mishaud say get out of the wheelchair. 

Plaintiff said he could not because he can’t walk. Plaintiff asked to speak with someone higher 

up and wheeled himself to the custody staff office. He was followed by Officers Mishaud and 

Case 1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Carlos. Plaintiff spoke with Sergeant Velasco, who stated that he wished to hear what his 

officers had to say about Plaintiff being the wheelchair. Plaintiff said he had a bad back and bad 

hips. Plaintiff also said he could not walk and that was why he was in the wheelchair. He told 

Sergeant Velasco that he could check Plaintiff’s medical records and see for himself. All three 

officer told Plaintiff to get out of the wheelchair or he would be forced out and end up in lockup. 

After the taking of his wheelchair, Plaintiff fell. He was injured on his forehead, bridge of his 

nose, upper and lower lips. He lost his front teeth and his face was disfigured. 

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to his medical needs and seeks to recover for 

injuries reportedly sustained in his fall. 

III. Discussion

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to 

medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 

Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th 

Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference 

is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical 

need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 

at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than 

ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

The crux of Plaintiff’s amended complaint is that Defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to his need for a wheelchair. According to exhibits attached to the complaint, 

Plaintiff reportedly fell the day after his wheelchair was taken, on May 15, 2014. (ECF No. 18 at 

9, 11, 13.) Critically, however, these exhibits contradict Plaintiff’s allegations that he could not 

Case 1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 5
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

walk and required a wheelchair. Indeed, on May 8, 2014, a physician order indicates that 

Plaintiff was to discontinue the temporary wheelchair as there was “[n]o indication for use of 

wheelchair.” Plaintiff was noted to be doing okay and walking well. (ECF No. 18 at 24.) On 

May 12, 2014, progress notes indicated that Plaintiff was using a cane, but reportedly wanted a 

wheelchair because he could not walk. Plaintiff reportedly was seen last week in the clinic with 

a wheelchair and “was heard arguing with the officers because he refused to return the wheel 

chair even though he had been seen in the clinic since after he was supposed to turn in the 

wheelchair and he was walking OK with a cane.” (ECF No. 18 at 21.) Plaintiff was noted to 

ambulate “well with a cane; steady gate,” he was “observed walking out of the clinic and showed 

no apparent discomfort,” his physical examination was “unremarkable” and there was “[n]o 

indication for wheelchair as requested by the inmate.” (Id.) Plaintiff was offered a walker for 

longer distances. (Id.) As there was no indication Plaintiff had a medical need for a wheelchair, 

Defendants could not have been deliberately indifferent. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that there was no medical indication for 

back surgery and Plaintiff was provided treatment for pain, including steroid injections. (ECF 

No. 18 at pp. 19, 21.) To the extent Plaintiff merely disagrees with the course of treatment for 

his back pain, he cannot state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. A prisoner’s mere 

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

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989).

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted 

under section 1983. The deficiencies identified by the Court cannot be cured by amendment. 

Therefore, further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2000).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 

for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 

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 1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 01/29/16 Page 4 of 5
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

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01966-LJO-BAM Document 20 Filed 01/29/16 Page 5 of 5