Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01170/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01170-3/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

Plaintiff Jeffrey Franklin is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed January 8, 2020.

I.

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 

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

///

///

JEFFREY FRANKLIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS

[ECF No. 16]

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 8
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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 

sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying 

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the first amended complaint as true only for the 

purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff names Doctor Harold Tate, Chief Physician Surgeon U. Baniga, Chief Medical 

Executive S. Shiesha, Deputy Director J. Lewis, as Defendants.

On July 29, 2015 to August 7, 2015, while Plaintiff was at a legal visit with the class action 

attorneys, he was told by custody staff to terminate the legal visit to attend his cancer therapy regimen. 

Plaintiff told staff that the visit was critical and to allow him to proceed to the end before he was taken 

for the cancer treatment. When Plaintiff continued with the legal visit, Defendant Dr. Tate called the 

cancer center radiation oncologist, and falsely told the center that Plaintiff no longer wanted the 

radiation treatment and to discontinue all future radiation therapy. As a result of Defendant Dr. Tate’s 

action, Plaintiff missed numerous days of radiation treatment. 

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 8
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 was told before he began radiation treatment that it was vital that all radiation 

treatment appointments be fulfilled as well as all medication. This information was known by 

Defendant Dr. Tate and the other named Defendants. 

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed an emergency medical appeal regarding the action taken by 

Defendant Dr. Tate. Plaintiff stated that Dr. Tate’s action was done because Plaintiff was participating 

in the class action civil lawsuit. Plaintiff also requested that he be assigned a different primary care 

physician and that his cancer radiation treatment be reinstated. Plaintiff noted that this was the third 

time since January 2015 that Defendant Dr. Tate interfered with his cancer treatment. Plaintiff’s 

appeal was answered by Defendant Baniga who acknowledged that Dr. Tate did discontinue the 

cancer treatment stating, “treatment you were getting since June 2015 and must continue to receive 

until completion of the treatment plan.” Defendant Baniga granted Plaintiff’s request to reinstate the 

radiation cancer treatment and medical care. However, Defendant Baniga denied providing Plaintiff a 

new primary care physician. 

Plaintiff appeal to the second level of review. Defendant Shiesha as Chief Medical Executive 

reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and had the authority to appoint a different primary care 

physician, but did nothing to correct the misconduct by Dr. Tate. Defendant Shiesha knowingly 

participated and supported the misconduct by Dr. Tate. 

Plaintiff appeals the third and final level of review. On December 7, 2015, Defendant Lewis 

issued a decision which did not address all of Plaintiff’s issues, namely, the request for a different 

primary care physician. Defendant Lewis stated that Plaintiff “may not be selective in the choice of 

PCP.” 

On or about August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed another medical appeal regarding the 

discontinuance of the A&D ointment prescription, which was active from June 2015 to June 2016. 

The A&D ointment was used to treat Plaintiff’s cracked and bloody skin. In August 2015, Defendant 

Dr. Tate discontinued the A&D ointment for no medical reason. This took place several days after he 

filed the July 31, 2015, appeal regarding Dr. Tate’s discontinuance of the radiation treatment. 

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 8
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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

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 (1) 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. In order to establish a claim of deliberate 

indifference based on a delay in treatment, a plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002); Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 1994). 

“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 

professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 

indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, 

Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under 

the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk 

to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In addition, mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this 

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 8
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

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle 

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)). “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional 

violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-

88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (“The deliberate indifference doctrine is limited in scope.”).

The prison grievance process does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates, and in 

general, actions in reviewing and denying inmate appeals does not serve a basis for liability under 

section 1983. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 

860 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the grievance puts the official on notice of an ongoing constitutional 

violation, the official may be liable for deliberate indifference when they knowingly fail to respond to 

an inmate’s requests for help. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d at 1098. 

1. Radiation Treatment

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations state a cognizable claim against Defendant Dr. Tate 

for deliberate indifference for the discontinuance of his radiation treatment because he was 

participating in a civil action. However, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Dr. Tate for 

the discontinuance of certain medication in February 2015, as there are insufficient facts to support a 

plausible inference of deliberate indifference. In addition, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim 

against Defendants Shiesha and Lewis for denial of radiation treatment because they reviewed 

Plaintiff’s grievances after the violation took place and was remedied. See, e.g., Poulson v. Kirkegard, 

No. CV-14-00043-H-DLC-JTJ, 2015 WL 5943207, at *5 (D. Mont. Mar. 16, 2015) (“If a 

constitutional violation is complete, however, and a supervisory grievance reviewer is simply making 

a determination on whether the prison should provide a remedy for a past violation, the supervisory 

grievance reviewer has no part in causing the constitutional violation”); see also Ford v. Lewis, No. 

16cv1126-LAB (BLM), 2016 WL 11281412, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2016) (same); Salas v. Nichols, 

No. 17-cv-00663-JST, 2017 WL 2834061, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2017) (prison grievance which 

“only placed particular defendants on notice regarding alleged past constitutional violations, and not 

ongoing constitutional violations” insufficient to give rise to claim for relief). To the extent Plaintiff 

contends that these Defendants improperly denied his request to be assigned a new PCP, there was no 

basis to appoint a new PCP as the radiation treatment was reinstated. In addition, the mere denial of 

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 8
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

an inmate appeal for a past violation, does not give rise to a cognizable constitutional claim. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant Dr. Tate only for deliberate 

indifference based on the discontinuance of his radiation treatment.

2. Prescription for A&D Ointment

Assuming Plaintiff’s allegations that due to his radiation treatment, he suffered painful 

cracked, chapped and bleeding skin meets the objective component of a serious medical need, Plaintiff 

has failed to demonstrate the subjective component of a claim for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff has 

failed to demonstrate that any Defendant acted with deliberate indifferent to a substantial risk of 

serious harm. Plaintiff alleges only that Dr. Tate “denied” him A&D ointment despite having 

previously filed out the prescription. The mere denial of the ointment, without more, fails to 

demonstrate that Dr. Tate acted deliberate indifference. See Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d at 987 (“A 

difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical professionals -

concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.”) Plaintiff 

does not set forth how he requested the ointment, when he requested the ointment, what response, if 

any, he received from Dr. Tate, or that Dr. Tate was aware of his need for the ointment after he 

allegedly filed a grievance against him. Rather, Plaintiff merely alleges that Dr. Tate previously filled 

out a prescription for the A&D ointment then denied it in retaliation for filing a grievance. Because 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated deliberate indifference by Defendant Dr. Tate related to the denial of 

the A&D ointment, his claims against the grievance reviewers also fail. 

B. Retaliation

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be free 

from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim 

v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse 

action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 

chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). To 

state a cognizable retaliation claim, Plaintiff must establish a nexus between the retaliatory act and the 

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 8
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

protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F.Supp.3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014). 

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for retaliation against 

Defendant Dr. Tate for the discontinuance of his radiation treatment because he exercised his right to 

participate in class action lawsuit. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985) 

(finding assisting others with litigation and brining litigation is protected activity under the First 

Amendment). 

However, Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory claim that the denial of the ointment was because 

Plaintiff filed the July 31, 2015, grievance fails to give rise to a cognizable claim of retaliation. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the alleged action in denying him A&D ointment was motivated by 

retaliation. Further, Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant Dr. Tate had knowledge of any 

alleged grievance previously filed. Plaintiff’s mere speculation is insufficient to give rise to a claim 

for retaliation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim for the denial of the 

A&D ointment. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for 

retaliation for discontinuance of radiation treatment and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need 

against Defendant Dr. Tate only. Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standards and 

the deficiencies in his pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint is largely identical to the previous complaints. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that 

would support any other cognizable claims for relief, and further amendment would be futile. See

Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend 

when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, the Court finds 

that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). 

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation and deliberate indifference against 

Defendant Dr. Tate; and

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief.

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-one (21) 

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 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: January 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01170-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 8