Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00212-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

LEMA ARMSTEAD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

P. SCHULTZ, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 05 CV F-0212 OWW DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

Plaintiff is a former prisoner in federal custody proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed July 5, 2005, which plaintiff

filed after this court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. This proceeding was

referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

Case 1:05-cv-00212-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 03/13/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the amended complaint plaintiff names Unit Manager R. Armendariz as the only

defendant. Plaintiff alleges that on June 14, 2004, he suffered a seizure during the night and fell out

of his upper bunk. He alleges that he suffered a pinched nerve as a result of the fall. Plaintiff

contends that his injury was the result of deliberate indifference on the part of prison staff because he

has an epileptic condition and therefore the medical department gave an lower bunk order with

which unit staff failed to comply. Plaintiff alleges that prior to his accident, he submitted a request

to defendant Armendariz asking to be given a lower bunk and was told he would be given the next

available lower bunk. Plaintiff contends there was a lower bunk available at that time. Plaintiff

seeks punitive damages. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim against defendant

Armendariz who is the only named defendant. As plaintiff was previously advised, a prisoner’s

claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the

mistreatment rises to the level of "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference” standard involves an objective and

a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). 

Second, the prison official must act with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more

than mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 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.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's

civil rights have been abridged, "the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere

'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action." Broughton

v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A]

complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not

Case 1:05-cv-00212-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 03/13/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does

not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995);

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs.,

Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to

establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d

1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 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). 

Deliberate indifference can be manifested by prison guards intentionally denying or delaying

access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. However, where a prisoner alleges a delay in receiving medical

treatment, the prisoner must allege that the delay led to further injury. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9 Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, th

1136 (9 Cir. 1997); Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9 Cir. th th

1985). 

Although neither a physician’s negligence nor a prisoner’s disagreement with a particular

course of treatment states a claim for deliberate indifference, a prison medical staff’s acts or

omissions will constitute deliberate indifference if staff members knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to an inmate’s health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. Prison officials are

deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they “interfere with treatment

once prescribed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. The Ninth Circuit has found deliberate

indifference where prison officials “deliberately ignore the express orders of a prisoner’s prior

physician for reasons unrelated to the medical needs of the prisoner.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d

1062, 1066 (9 Cir. 1992)(reversing summary judgment where prison officials forced prisoner to

th

endure a plane flight that resulted in ear injury, in direct contravention of a treating physician’s

previous orders); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989)(per

curium)(reversing summary judgment where medical staff knew that pretrial detainee had head

Case 1:05-cv-00212-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 03/13/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

injury, but prescribed contraindicated medications, disregarding evidence of complications to which

they had been specifically alerted by private treating physician); Tolbert v. Eyman, 434 F.2d 625 (9th

Cir. 1970)(finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where warden refused to authorize

prisoner’s receipt of medicine that had been previously prescribed by a physician); Cf. McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9 Cir. 1992)(where surgery recommended by prisoner’s prior th

physician was severely delayed, court was unable hold doctors liable because prison administrators,

not the doctors, were responsible for scheduling treatment).

 The Courts of other federal Circuits have also found deliberate indifference where prison

officials ignore a previous physician’s treatment plan. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3 Cir. rd

1990) (finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where prison officials ignored private

hospital’s treatment orders and refused inmate’s access to prescribed medication); Gill v. Mooney,

824 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1987) (finding cognizable claim where prison officials refused to permit

plaintiff to participate in exercise program prescribed by doctor); Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055

(7th Cir. 1987) (finding cognizable claim where prisoner alleged that prison officials made him

travel and carry a heavy box, causing a surgical incision to gape open, in violation of prior medical

orders); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 983, cited with

approval by Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105 n.10 (finding deliberate indifference where prison

staff forced post-surgical prisoner-patient to walk, ignoring warnings from hospital personnel that

inmate should not be moved); see also Carl T. Drechsler, Annotation, Relief Under Federal Civil

Rights Acts to State Prisoners Complaining of Denial of Medical Care, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 279 (1976)

(recognizing that, on the whole, courts do not condone the practice of prison officials ignoring orders

rendered by a prisoner’s previous physician). 

Here, plaintiff admits that defendant Armendariz granted his request for a lower bunk, as

soon as one was available. That plaintiff believes there was a lower bunk available at that time, does

not establish deliberate indifference on the part of defendant Armendariz. Plaintiff does not allege

that this defendant ignored his request for a lower bunk or that he interfered with plaintiff’s bunk

assignment. Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Armendariz simply do not rise to the level of

Case 1:05-cv-00212-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 03/13/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

deliberate indifference. Even if defendant was wrong about there not being a lower bunk available at

the time of plaintiff’s request, as discussed, negligent conduct does not amount to deliberate

indifference. 

In summary, the Court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint, like his original complaint,

fails to state any cognizable claims for relief and therefore should be dismissed. In recommending

dismissal, the Court recommends that plaintiff not be granted leave to amend again because he was

previously given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, and he was unable to cure the

deficiencies. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s amended complaint

be dismissed without leave to amend, concluding this action in its entirety.

 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, the parties may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

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: March 10, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00212-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 03/13/06 Page 5 of 5