Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00287/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00287-7/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

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00287-LJO-GSA-PC

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 24.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr. (“Plaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on February 27, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) 

On May 8, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff=s Complaint for failure to state a claim, 

with leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A; 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). (ECF No. 20.) On July 16, 

2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. 

(ECF No. 24.)

II. 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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 10
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

paid, the court shall 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 is required to contain Aa 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 A[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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Id. 

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The events at 

issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at the California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility (SATF) in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated at there. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Smith, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Brown, LVN Morris, LVN Gonsalez, 

LVN Matha, and RN Powel (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants were all employed by 

the CDCR at SATF at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow.

On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff was the victim of an assault when a riot occurred at SATF 

and he suffered serious injuries. He was rushed to San Joaquin Community Hospital and 

underwent surgery to reconstruct his cheek bone. The surgery was performed by a plastic 

surgeon, Dr. Freman [not a defendant], and it took two plates and about ten screws to complete 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 10
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

the repairs. Plaintiff also had several teeth removed and suffered from a broken clavicle. The 

Defendants were told by Dr. Adle [not a defendant] to re-set the bone within two weeks. 

Defendants ignored that order for six months. Plaintiff was in constant pain, and Defendants’ 

failure to re-set the bone violated the Eighth Amendment and California Government Code 

§845.6, based on inadequate medical care. For six months, Plaintiff did not receive any 

medical treatment, despite his pleading for medical care and his need to have the bone re-set. 

Finally, on November 9, 2011, Plaintiff underwent surgery (open reduction and internal 

fixation of non-union right clavicle fracture utilizing five hole reconstruction plate and allograft 

bone graft). On November 19, 2011, 27 staples were removed from Plaintiff’s right clavicle, at 

which time the LVN pushed too hard on his clavicle, causing two of the lateral screws to back 

out of the bone. Plaintiff was in extreme pain and could not move his arm. X-rays revealed 

that the two screws had come out of the bone. On November 22, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by 

Defendant Dr. David G. Smith, who took another x-ray and ordered urgent surgery. Plaintiff 

was left in this condition for 18 days before receiving corrective surgery. 

On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff underwent surgery to replace the two lateral screws. 

Also a cerclage wire was used at the end of the fracture to hold the plate in place. Something 

went wrong during surgery that Plaintiff was not informed about, and upon returning to the 

prison, he could not breathe, began coughing up blood, and went into respiratory distress. He 

was rushed to Kaweah Delta Health Care District. On the way, the ambulance transporting 

Plaintiff to the hospital had a collision due to the paramedic’s reckless driving, and Plaintiff had 

to be moved to another ambulance. Plaintiff was admitted into the cardiac care unit and 

underwent another surgery to repair his lung. It was discovered that Dr. Smith had hit 

Plaintiff’s lung while doing surgery on his clavicle causing hemotysis. The third surgery was 

not only painful but frightening, because a bronchoscope had to be inserted in Plaintiff’s nose 

to reach his lung. Oxygen-gel was placed in his nose, which Plaintiff had to breathe, causing 

him to feel like he was drowning. He then spent 3 days in intensive care. Upon returning to 

the prison, Plaintiff had to stay 30 days in the infirmary. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 10
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

Plaintiff was still in extreme pain because the two lateral screws were pushing out of his 

bone and attempting to come through his skin. On December 22, 2011, x-rays showed that the 

screws had once again backed out of the bone. Plaintiff requested that another doctor remove 

the screws, but Dr. Smith told him he could not choose the doctor. Plaintiff explained that he 

was afraid because of what happened the last time. For another 6 months, Plaintiff walked 

around in extreme pain. He asked Dr. Smith to remove the screws because he was in extreme 

pain, but Dr. Smith said he could not do anything. Plaintiff asked him for pain medication but 

was denied.

Plaintiff asked Dr. Jackson to provide him surgery and pain medication, and he just 

laughed at Plaintiff. Plaintiff asked defendant LVN Matha to place him on the doctors line to 

see another doctor, but she stated that he didn’t need medication and should deal with it. 

Plaintiff asked defendant LVN Gonsalez to place him on the line to see a different doctor, and 

she stated, “You’re done,” and told him she did not want to see him back at the clinic ever 

again.

After the fourth operation, Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, causing the staples 

at the operation site to come apart, and Plaintiff contracted a painful infection. On July 21, 

2012, when Nurse Nalett [not a defendant] was changing his dressing, defendant LVN Morris 

stormed out of the storage room and yelled at Plaintiff, telling him he could not have any more 

dressing changes, because supplies cost too much to be wasted on him, and all he really wanted 

was to see Nurse Nalett, inferring that he was there for sexual reasons. Plaintiff informed 

defendant Morris that he was there for medical reasons, that his clavicle was bleeding and 

discharging pus. Defendant Morris then began yelling at Nurse Nalett, who was only helping

Plaintiff. Sergeant S. Herberling [not a defendant] had to calm defendant Morris down, and 

told Morris that she did not like all of the yelling and unethical conduct. Plaintiff alleges that 

defendant Morris’s conduct was retaliation against Plaintiff for complaints he had filed against 

staff for medical treatment. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Morris, which was 

granted and determined that Morris violated policy. As a result, Plaintiff was left to change his 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 4 of 10
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

own dressing every day until the discharge stopped, and to ask other inmates for help, fearing 

more retaliation. 

Plaintiff saw defendant Dr. Tiggs-Brown and pleaded with her for medical care, 

including pain medication and a soft food diet, as he had a previous order for these. He also 

requested to have the hardware removed, but she did nothing to help him.

On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff met defendant RN Powel at the work change gate and 

informed her that his administrative appeals for medical care had been granted, and the medical 

narcotics board had approved the request for renewal of his order for 30mg of morphine for 

pain. They walked to the clinic, and defendants Jackson, Gonsalez, and Morris were there. 

Plaintiff showed the defendants his documentation. Defendant Gonsalez told Plaintiff that on 

February 5, she had instructed defendant Jackson to give Plaintiff Tylenol-3 and that was it, 

and that he didn’t need his hardware removed. Defendant Powel stated that she wouldn’t help 

Plaintiff if she could, because the other defendants did not like the fact that he complained 

about his treatment, and she walked away leaving Plaintiff standing there. Plaintiff explained 

to defendants Jackson, Gonsalez, and Matha that he needed the plate removed, and he was told 

that it was only going to be temporary.

Plaintiff requests monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

IV. PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by 

the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 

redress.

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 5 of 10
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

A. Medical Claim – Eighth Amendment

A[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show >deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.=@ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976)). 

The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>a serious 

medical need= by demonstrating that >failure to treat a prisoner=s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,=@ and (2) Athe 

defendant=s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX 

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations 

omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner=s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen prison 

officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by 

the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.@ Id. 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 at 

1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 

1985)). 

ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official must not only >be aware of the 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,= but 

that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but 

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the 

risk.=@ Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 

2002)). AA showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a 

constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060. A[E]ven gross negligence 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 6 of 10
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

is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 

F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

AA difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities 

regarding treatment does not give rise to a ' 1983 claim.@ Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 

1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff Amust show that the course 

of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . 

that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff=s health.@ 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

Discussion

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint recites nearly the same allegations found in 

Plaintiff’s original Complaint. Plaintiff has demonstrated that he had a serious medical need 

because he was the victim of an assault and suffered serious injuries to his cheek and mouth, 

requiring reconstruction surgery. Also, his clavicle was broken, requiring more surgery to reset the bone. He also suffered extreme pain from the injuries, surgeries, and complications 

from the surgeries. Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff shows that he had a serious medical 

need.

However, Plaintiff fails in the First Amended Complaint, as in the original Complaint, 

to allege facts showing that any of the Defendants acted against him with deliberate 

indifference. Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that any of the Defendants acted, or 

failed to act, while knowing about and disregarding a serious risk to his health. According to 

the allegations, Plaintiff received regular treatment for his condition, including surgeries, 

medication, and visits with medical staff. While there were delays in his treatment, Plaintiff 

has not shown that the delays caused him further harm. Plaintiff suffered pain both before and 

after surgery, and he still suffers pain. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied pain medication, but 

he also alleges that at some point in his treatment, he was approved for treatment with 

morphine for pain. Plaintiff’s allegations that he could not choose his own doctor, that he was 

not treated kindly during the course of his treatment, that he was subject to a vehicular accident, 

and that complications arose during and after surgery, do not demonstrate deliberate 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 7 of 10
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

indifference. As discussed above, even gross negligence or medical malpractice do not rise to 

the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff alleges that medical staff did respond favorably to 

his requests for surgery and medication, demonstrating a difference of opinion about his 

medical care, which does not constitute deliberate indifference. The fact that Plaintiff was 

given Tylenol-3 instead of morphine does not state a claim for relief. With respect to 

Plaintiff’s complaints that the plates in his face, which he was told were temporary, have not 

been removed, Plaintiff has not shown more than a disagreement with his course of treatment.

Plaintiff has not alleged that immediate removal of the plates, or other surgical hardware, is 

medically indicated or that any of the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in refusing 

to remove the plates. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment

medical claim.

B. Retaliation

As discussed by the Ninth Circuit in Watison v. Carter:

“A retaliation claim has five elements. Brodheim v. Cry, 

584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the plaintiff must 

allege that the retaliated-against conduct is protected. The filing 

of an inmate grievance is protected conduct. Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005).

Second, the plaintiff must claim the defendant took 

adverse action against the plaintiff. Id. at 567. The adverse 

action need not be an independent constitutional violation. Pratt 

v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). “[T]he mere 

threat of harm can be an adverse action....” Brodheim, 584 F.3d 

at 1270.

Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection 

between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Because 

direct evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a 

complaint, allegation of a chronology of events from which 

retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal. See

Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (“timing can properly be considered as 

circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent”); Murphy v. Lane,

833 F.2d 106, 108–09 (7th Cir. 1987).

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official's acts 

would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future 

First Amendment activities.” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal 

quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff who fails 

to allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he 

suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is 

“more than minimal,” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 8 of 10
9

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

retaliatory conduct did not chill the plaintiff from suing the 

alleged retaliator does not defeat the retaliation claim at the 

motion to dismiss stage. Id. at 569.

Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities' 

retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the 

correctional institution....” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir.1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this element by 

alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant's 

actions were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were 

“unnecessary to the maintenance of order in the institution,” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir.1984).”

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff alleges that he filed prison grievances against prison staff members for 

inadequate medical treatment, and sometime afterward defendant Morris yelled at him, 

accusing him of requesting medical care for improper purposes and wasting costly medical 

supplies. While Plaintiff has shown that adverse action was taken against him, he has not 

shown any causal connection between the filing of grievances and defendant Morris’s conduct. 

Plaintiff has not shown direct evidence of retaliatory intent, nor has he alleged facts from which 

retaliation can be inferred. Plaintiff’s allegations provide no evidence of retaliatory motive to 

satisfy the third element of a retaliation claim. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable 

claim for retaliation.

C. State Law Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated California Government Code § 845.6 when 

they failed to re-set his bone. Plaintiff is advised that violation of state law is not sufficient to 

state a claim for relief under ' 1983. To state a claim under ' 1983, there must be a deprivation 

of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). Although 

the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have 

a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1367. In this instance, the 

Court fails to find any cognizable federal claims in the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, 

Plaintiff=s state law claim fails.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claims upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 9 of 10
10

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

leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. Plaintiff has now filed two 

complaints without stating any claims upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. The 

Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, 

and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A 

and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983, and that this dismissal be subject to the Athreestrikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th 

Cir. 2011).

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 AObjections 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: June 23, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 28 Filed 06/24/15 Page 10 of 10