Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01814-3/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 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United 

States Magistrate Judge on December 23, 2015. Local Rule 302.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint, filed April 14, 2016. (ECF 

No. 16.) 

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

VINCENT POTTS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01814-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

[ECF No. 16]

Case 1:15-cv-01814-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/05/16 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

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

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)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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

Plaintiff is currently housed at Stanislaus County Jail where the alleged incidents took place. 

Plaintiff is a post-surgical inmate with severe disc and joint disease, bone spurs, severe bilateral neural 

forminal stenosis, severe right forminial stenosis, central inferior disc extrusion, and a crooked spine. 

Upon arrival, Plaintiff‟s pain medication was confiscated and replaced with medication that is 

not compatible with Plaintiff‟s serious medical needs. Doctor Ho stated that he would increase 

Plaintiff‟s medication and evaluate every ninety days but has not responded to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has 

not been evaluated by Dr. Ho since September/October 2015. Dr. Ho never performed an x-ray or 

sent Plaintiff for an MRI examination. 

Case 1:15-cv-01814-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/05/16 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

Jen D. informed Plaintiff that all he would receive is Valium and he was lucky to receive that. 

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Ho refuses to administer a more appropriate fix like Norco #10 or Vicodin. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

“Claims by pretrial detainees [such as Plaintiff here] are analyzed under the Fourteenth 

Amendment Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment [, which applies to prisoners in 

custody pursuant to a judgment of conviction].” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Where a plaintiff alleges inadequate medical care, however, “pretrial detainees‟ rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners‟ rights under the Eighth Amendment, [so] we 

apply the same standards.” Id. 

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. 

“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 v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-

Case 1:15-cv-01814-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/05/16 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

83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) (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). 

As with Plaintiff‟s original complaint, the allegations in the amended complaint demonstrate 

nothing more than his disagreement with the treatment provided by medical personnel at the San 

Joaquin County Jail. Indeed, the grievance form attached to Plaintiff‟s original complaint states that 

medical personnel discussed Plaintiff‟s current treatment plan with him, and informed Plaintiff that 

“Dr. Ho‟s recommendation at this time is to continue with current treatment plan that you agreed to 

during your last appointment with him on 4/9/15.” (ECF No. 1, at 13.) As to Plaintiff‟s request to see 

outside physician, Dr. F. Fine, such request was denied by jail staff who stated the following:

It appears that your Physician F. Fine has been in communication with the Jail 

Physician Ho. It appears they have discussed your current condition & treatment.

Dr. Fine has indicated that he is satisfied and has no interest in seeing you in his office 

at this time.

Your request for a pass is denied.

(ECF No. 1, at 16.) It is well-established that Plaintiff‟s disagreement with prison doctors regarding 

his medical treatment cannot give rise to a constitutional claim, and inmates are not entitled to their 

choice of pain medication. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d at 987. In sum, Plaintiff‟s disagreement 

with the fact that he is receiving Valium and Neurontin, instead of Norco or Vicodin for his pain does 

not give rise to a constitutional violation. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d at 242. Plaintiff admission that 

he is receiving Valium and Neurontin demonstrates he is receiving some treatment, and the fact that he 

believes he should be provided different treatment does not give rise to “deliberate indifference.” See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976) (a physician‟s decision concerning how to treat a patient‟s 

pain “is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a 

cognizable claim for relief based on his medical treatment. 

Case 1:15-cv-01814-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/05/16 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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint fails to give rise to a cognizable claim for deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was previously 

provided with notice of the deficiencies in this claims and further leave to amend is not warranted 

given the similarity between the factual allegations in his original and amended complaints. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-1213 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-1131 (9th Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-1449 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the instant action is 

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01814-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 5