Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05469/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05469-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY JONES,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5469 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

MTA. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at

Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga (PVSP), brings this civil rights action against

defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at PVSP. Plaintiff

names the following individual defendants: Medical Technical Assistant (MTA) Johnson; MTA

Brewer; Chief Medical Officer Klarich; Warden Gail Lewis. 

Plaintiff’s claim in this complaint is that defendants were deliberately indifferent

to his serious medical needs. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants mis-diagnosed a

broken finger. Plaintiff alleges that he injured his finger on June 22, 2002. Plaintiff was

involved in mutual combat with another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that Brewer’s diagnosis was

Case 1:03-cv-05469-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 04/25/06 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

2

“simply being a swollen hand and nothing more.” Plaintiff was later diagnosed by a physician

with a broken finger. Plaintiff alleges that the injury was left untreated “for such a long period

of time, the finger set itself back in an abnormal manner, which has now limited the use of the

plaintiff’s right hand to as low as 60%.” 

Plaintiff alleges generally that MTA Jones “failed to perform her duties as a MTA

in a professional and respectful manner.” Plaintiff advised Jones that his finger was broken, yet

she “denied plaintiff the proper medical attention.” 

Plaintiff does specifically allege that on July 8, 2002, that he informed Brewer

that his finger was broken. Brewer advised plaintiff that it was not broken, but was swollen. 

Brewer denied plaintiff’s request to see a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that Brewer “failed to properly

examine” plaintiff’s finger. 

As to Dr. Klarich, plaintiff alleges that he was informed by Dr. Kim that plaintiff

“is in emergency need of off sight medical treatment for his broken right phalanx finger.” 

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Klarich “failed to perform his duties within a reasonable time frame.” 

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, because of Dr. Klarich’s conduct, plaintiff’s finger “had

already set itself back, but in an abnormal manner.” Plaintiff alleges that he suffers permanent

injury as a result.

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide

medical care to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9

th Cir.

2000). “In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment, there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. 

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to

evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” 

First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second,

a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical

Case 1:03-cv-05469-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 04/25/06 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

3

treatment.” Id. at 1132.

As to Dr. Klarich, plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. 

The facts alleged indicate that Dr. Klarich was advised that plaintiff needed to be sent to an

outside hospital for treatment. Dr. Klarich’s delay in doing so caused permanent injury.

As to MTA Brewer and Johnson, plaintiff’s allegations indicate that they misdiagnosed plaintiff as having a swollen hand. In order to state a claim for relief, plaintiff must

allege facts that indicate deliberate indifference. Though Brewer and Johnson and charged with

denying plaintiff permission to see a doctor, the facts of the compliant indicate that they did so

based on their diagnosis of a swollen hand. Liberally construed, plaintiff has alleged, at most,

negligence. . “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a

medical condition does not 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). 

As to Warden Lewis, plaintiff alleges that she knew of the conduct of the

defendants, yet failed to respond. Plaintiff may not hold Warden Lewis liable based on her

supervisory position. Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that she was personally

involved. A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 only if there exists either “‘(1) his or her

personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Redman v. County

of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9

th Cir. 1991)(quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646

(9th Cir. 1989)); see also MacKinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-05469-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 04/25/06 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

4

has failed to allege such facts. Warden Lewis should therefore be dismissed.

Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief as to defendants Johnson,

Brewer and Lewis, they should be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that defendants Lewis, Brewer and Johnson be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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 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: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05469-OWW -WMW Document 20 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4