Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06264/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06264-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVYN DEVEREAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6264-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE ANY CLAIMS

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 10)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Kevyn Devereaux (“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, 42 U.S.C. § 12132

(Americans with Disabilities Act), and 29 U. S. C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act). Plaintiff filed this

action on September 15, 2004. On February 25, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with

leave to amend, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on April 20, 2005.

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 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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

Case 1:04-cv-06264-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

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, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in this action occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga,

California, where plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff names Edward Alameida, Jr.,

James A. Yates, Michael L. Bendon, E. Blano, F. Rasheed, Mental Health Services, Inc. and

numerous unidentified individuals as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief. The court

notes that plaintiff has been released from prison. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief

are moot. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519

(9th Cir. 1991). 

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff’s allegations are cursory at best, and plaintiff does not specify what the bases of his

claims are. Because plaintiff is complaining very generally about his medical condition, the court

will liberally construe plaintiff’s complaint as setting forth claims for violation of the Eighth

Amendment, the ADA, and the RA.

1. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Case 1:04-cv-06264-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate

indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in

a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may

be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,”

or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 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, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd.

of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his amended complaint that give rise to a cognizable

claim for relief against the named defendants for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2. ADA and RA Claims

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

(RA) “both prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039,

1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability

shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.”

42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the RA provides that “no otherwise qualified individual with a

disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in,

be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

Federal financial assistance . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 794. Title II of the ADA and the RA apply to

inmates within state prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 1955

///

Case 1:04-cv-06264-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 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

4

(1998); see also Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 1997); Duffy v. Riveland, 98

F.3d 447, 453-56 (9th Cir. 1996).

“To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a

qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise

discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and (3) such

exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052. “To

establish a violation of § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is handicapped within

the meaning of the RA; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) [he] was

denied the benefit or services solely by reason of [his] handicap; and (4) the program providing the

benefit or services receives federal financial assistance.” Id. 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his amended complaint that give rise to a cognizable

claim for relief against the named defendants for violation of the ADA or the RA. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s vague, general allegations are insufficient to give rise to any

claims for relief against the named defendants. Plaintiff was previously provided with notice and

specific instructions regarding the deficiencies in his claims, and the applicable legal standards, but

failed to cure the deficiencies. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon

which relief may be granted under section 1983, the ADA, or the RA. 

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 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06264-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 11/01/05 Page 4 of 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

5

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: October 31, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06264-AWI -SMS Document 13 Filed 11/01/05 Page 5 of 5