Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01888/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01888-3/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS J. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BONNIE LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1888 MCE CKD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, who seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 15, 2015, plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed 

for failure to state a claim, and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 8.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint (“FAC”) is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 

13.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff’s allegations concern prison officials’ failure to provide him Boost dietary 

supplements for weight gain in 2014 and 2015. He alleges that, after he was transferred to High 

Desert State Prison in June 2014, defendant Hogue (a Registered Nurse) reviewed his chart but

failed to honor his medical chrono for Boost supplements or migraine medication. 

Plaintiff submitted a grievance seeking a refill of his migraine medicine. He also asked to 

receive his Boost supplements. Defendant Bryant responded to the grievance, noting that 

Case 2:15-cv-01888-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

2

plaintiff’s migraine medication was recently dispensed from the pharmacy, and no order was 

found from plaintiff’s previous institution ordering Boost supplements. (FAC, Ex. D.) Plaintiff’s 

inmate appeal was subsequently granted, and he received daily Boost supplements until January 

30, 2015.

After plaintiff’s supplements were discontinued, he filed appeals asking to have them 

reinstated. As recounted in the first screening order, medical staff reviewed plaintiff’s appeals, 

evaluated plaintiff, and concluded there was no medical need for continued supplements. 

There is a two-part test for deliberate indifference in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff must 

show a medical need and that the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent. 

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). This second prong is satisfied by showing 

(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) 

harm caused by the indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but that person “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 

(1994). This “subjective approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually 

was.” Id. at 839. 

A showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional 

violation. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998). A difference of opinion about 

the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does a dispute between a 

prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical treatment amount to a 

constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, construing the FAC in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the undersigned finds it 

states a deliberate indifference claim against defendant Hogue. (See FAC, ¶¶18-22, Exs. B & C.) 

As to the other defendants, the FAC fails to cure the defects of the original complaint. There is 

no indication that defendant Bryant knew plaintiff had a chrono for Boost supplements, and the 

events after January 30, 2015 reflect a difference of opinion between plaintiff and medical staff as 

to plaintiff’s need for ongoing daily supplements. 

Case 2:15-cv-01888-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: J. Hogue.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed November 2, 2015.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; 

d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed November 2, 2015.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice as to all 

defendants except Hogue. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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). 

Dated: January 27, 2016

2 / garc1888.fac_fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01888-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/27/16 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

27

28

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS J. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BONNIE LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1888 MCE CKD P

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order 

filed _____________________:

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01888-MCE-CKD Document 15 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 4