Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02663/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roberto Carrasco Gamez, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 10-02663 PHX JWS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK:

Plaintiff filed a prisoner civil rights complaint on

December 14, 2010, alleging Defendants violated his

constitutional rights while incarcerated. Plaintiff also filed

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion seeking the

appointment of counsel. On January 25, 2011, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed

the complaint with leave to amend. Based on Plaintiff’s failure

to timely file an amended complaint, on March 11, 2011, the

Court ordered the case dismissed and ordered that the dismissal

be counted as a “strike” under section 1915.

On March 18, 2011, an amended complaint was docketed.

See Doc. 10. On May 3, 2011, the Court vacated its prior order

dismissing the case. See Doc. 12. With regard to the amended

complaint, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Equal Protection

claim and dismissed without prejudice as defendants the National

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 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

1

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan implemented a change

in the diet provided to male maximum custody inmates, which

has resulted in the provision of inadequate nutrition over

an extended period. He alleges that as a result, his

physical and mental condition are deteriorating and that he

has lost substantial weight and is provided supplements

rather than an adequate diet. Liberally construed,

Plaintiff sufficiently states a claim against Ryan

concerning his conditions of confinement.

-2-

Academy of Sciences and Dr. Kendall. See Doc. 12. The Court

ordered Defendant Ryan to answer part of Count I and Count II

of the amended complaint, asserting that as a result of a new

policy implemented by Defendant Ryan, as a maximum security

inmate Plaintiff was not provided an adequate and nutritious

diet.1

With regard to the allegations against Dr. Kendall, the

screening order determined:

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts against

Kendall. He has not alleged facts to support

that Kendall enacted or enforced a policy,

custom, or practice that resulted in the

denial of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

He also has not alleged facts to support that

Kendall directly violated his constitutional

rights or that Kendall was aware that

Plaintiff’s rights were being violated but

failed to act. Plaintiff thus fails to state

a claim against Kendall and he will be

dismissed.

On July 1, 2011, a service packet for Defendant Ryan

was forwarded to the Marshal for service and Defendant Ryan

answered the amended complaint on August 18, 2011. In a

scheduling order docketed October 5, 2011, the Court ordered

that any motion to further amend the complaint be filed no later

than October 28, 2011, and that discovery in this matter be

completed by April 6, 2012. See Doc. 19. On November 11, 2011,

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 2 of 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 2 Plaintiff is the plaintiff in four other cases currently before

the Court, three filed in 2010 and one filed in 2011.

-3-

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the time

allowed to file an amended complaint and on November 22, 2011,

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended

complaint and lodged a proposed amended complaint.2 See Doc. 23

& Doc. 27. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add Dennis

Kendall as a defendant and Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend

his complaint in the future to identify a John Doe defendant.

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint alleges that a

new meal plan introduced for male maximum security inmates

lowered the caloric intake from 2700 to 2685 calories per day

and that Plaintiff does not receive sufficient recommended

nutrients. Plaintiff complains that inmates receive two rather

than three meals per day. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

have acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

nutritional needs, resulting in serious medical conditions,

including digestive problems. Plaintiff alleges his Eighth

Amendment rights and his rights pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act are violated and that, because female inmates

receive a different menu, his right to equal protection of the

laws is violated. In the motion seeking leave to file an

amended complaint Plaintiff asserts that he has ascertained that

Dr. Kendall is liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. 

Specifically, with regard to Dr. Kendall, named as the

“Facility Health Administrator”, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Kendall

acted with deliberate indifference by “not correcting Plaintiffs

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 3 of 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

-4-

request for a glucose tolerance test.... (sic)” Plaintiff

contends that his serious medical condition(s) would be remedied

by a proper diet. Plaintiff contends that in May of 2011 Dr.

Kendall acted with deliberate indifference by reviewing

Plaintiff’s medical records and “denying Plaintiff concern for

a adequate diet (sic)”. “Plaintiff explained his stomach and

digestive problems to Def. Kendall requesting a snack diet to

consume with my medication. Plaintiff was advised to take his

medication (30) minutes prior to eating his meals....” 

Defendant Ryan opposes the motion for leave to amend,

noting that the motion was not filed by the date specified in

the Court’s scheduling order.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides

that a plaintiff should be given leave to amend his complaint

when justice so requires. See, e.g., United States v. Hougham,

364 U.S. 310, 316, 81 S. Ct. 13, 17 (1960); Howey v. United

States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). “Courts are free

to grant a party leave to amend whenever ‘justice so requires,’

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and requests for leave are generally

granted with ‘extreme liberality.’” Moss v. United States

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009), citing Owens

v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th

Cir. 2001). However, granting a plaintiff leave to amend “is

subject to the qualification that the amendment not cause undue

prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is

not futile.” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d

789, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 4 of 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

-5-

Futility of amendment is sufficient to justify denial

of a motion for leave to amend. See Gordon v. City of Oakland,

627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d

815 (9th Cir. 1995). A claim in a proposed amended complaint is

futile if it would be immediately “subject to dismissal”

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

accepting all of the facts alleged as true. See Steckman v.

Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998);

Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Medical Mutual of Ohio,601 F.3d

505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010); Briggs v. Mississippi, 331 F.3d 499,

508 (5th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

recently stated that “the ‘proper test to be applied when

determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is

identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a

pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6).’” Nordyke v. King, ___

F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1632063, at *18 n.12, quoting Miller v.

Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that “leave to

amend may be denied if the new complaint does not cure

deficiencies in the old one and is doomed to the same fate.”

Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 956 (2011).

A prison official’s deliberate indifference

to an inmate’s serious medical needs

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285,

291,[] (1976); Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d

1393, 1398 (9th Cir.),[] (1998). To state a

deliberate indifference claim, a prisoner

plaintiff must allege both that the

deprivation of medical care in question was

objectively serious, and that the defendant

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 5 of 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

-6-

official acted with a subjectively culpable

state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.

294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, [](1991). The

required showing of deliberate indifference

is satisfied when it is established that “the

official knew of and disregarded a

substantial risk of serious harm to [the

prisoner’s] health or safety.” Johnson, 134

F.3d at 1398 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, [](1994)).

 The courts have recognized that deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs may be

manifested in two ways: “It may appear when

prison officials deny, delay or intentionally

interfere with medical treatment, or it may

be shown by the way in which prison officials

provide medical care.” Hutchinson v. United

States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105,

97 S.Ct. 285). In either case, however, the

indifference to the inmate’s medical needs

must be purposeful and substantial;

negligence, inadvertence, or differences in

medical judgment or opinion do not rise to

the level of a constitutional violation.

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th

Cir.), [](1996); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

240, 242 (9th Cir.1989); Franklin v. Oregon

State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th

Cir.1981).

Fleming v. LeFevere, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1069-70 (C.D. Cal.

2006).

Plaintiff has not alleged facts other than that he

disagrees with Dr. Kendall’s treatment of Plaintiff’s digestive

upsets and that Dr. Kendall does not agree with Plaintiff’s

assertions regarding the adequacy of meals provided to Plaintiff

as a male inmate in the maximum security segment of the prison.

The claims stated in the proposed amended complaint with regard

to Dr. Kendall would be subject to dismissal because, inter

alia, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support

a section 1983 claim against Dr. Kendall for deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs as that

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 6 of 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

-7-

terminology has been clarified by the United States Circuit

Courts of Appeal.

Therefore,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 27) for

leave to amend his complaint to add Dr. Kendall as a defendant

be denied.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02663-JWS Document 35 Filed 01/11/12 Page 7 of 7