Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00514/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00514-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY ELLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00514-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 9)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Robert Morales (“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 this action on April

19, 2005. On September 19, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend,

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on October 25, 2005.

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 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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00514-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison-Corcoran, where plaintiff is presently incarcerated. Plaintiff

names Kathy Ellison, Dr. Wu, Dr. Klarich, and D. Bowen as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money

damages and an injunction requiring prison officials to provide plaintiff with adequate medical care.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that in late spring or early summer of 2004, he

he developed white bald patches on his neck and head. Plaintiff was also coughing up blood at the

time. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with hypothyroidism. At the time, plaintiff was under

Case 1:05-cv-00514-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 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

1

 Plaintiff’s reference to the Due Process Clause is disregarded. When a convicted prisoner alleges

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, the claim is brought pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, not the

Due Process Clause.

3

the care of defendant Wu, who prescribed cortisone shots for the skin condition and told plaintiff to

return for an injection if the cream did not work. Plaintiff returned to defendant Wu after the cream

failed to work. Defendant Wu spoke with plaintiff regarding his thyroid condition but when plaintiff

reminded him of the skin problem and injection, defendant told plaintiff to leave. Plaintiff alleges

that his skin condition worsened and several officers noticed the condition and suggested plaintiff

seek medical treatment. Plaintiff’s sister also contacted the institution on multiple occasions

concerning care for plaintiff’s skin condition.

In August of 2004, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal concerning defendant Wu’s refusal to

provide plaintiff with treatment by injection. Defendant Ellison responded to the appeal and denied

it. In November of 2004, plaintiff was prescribed a cortisone injection for treatment. Upon return

to the institution from the outside hospital, plaintiff’s medication was confiscated by two

transportation officers. In December of 2004, defendant Ellison advised that the medication

approved by the outside doctor had to be approved by doctors at the institution. It was subsequently

reported to plaintiff’s sister that prescriptions written by outside doctors are considered to be

recommendations only and the final decision on prescriptions is made by defendant Klarich, the

Chief Medical Officer. A prescription for Rogaine was denied by the CMO and plaintiff was treated

with cortisone cream only.

C. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim1

Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with adequate treatment for his condition and that

his right to the treatment prescribed by the outside physician was violated. To constitute cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A

prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment

violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized measure of

life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’”

Case 1:05-cv-00514-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,

744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent

manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when

prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,” or in the manner “in

which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.

1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)

(en banc). 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, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for

violation of the Eighth Amendment. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi,

391 F.3d at 1060. “Under 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, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘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)). 

Plaintiff’s assertion that he had a right to receive the treatment prescribed by the outside

physician is without merit. “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical

authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a s 1983 claim,” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted), and a difference of opinion between medical

personnel regarding treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). To prevail, plaintiff “must 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. 1986) (internal citations omitted). 

Case 1:05-cv-00514-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/18/06 Page 4 of 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

5

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a claim that any of the named defendants

“[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the decisions concerning treatment for his skin condition, including

the decision not to prescribe all of the medication recommended by the outside doctor, does not

support a claim for relief under section 1983. Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1344 (internal citation omitted);

Sanchez, 891 F.2d at 242. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983 for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs,

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was previously provided with the opportunity to

amend but was unable to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiff disagrees with the course of treatment

prescribed by prison officials and disagrees with prison officials’ failure to follow the course of

treatment recommended by an outside dermatologist. This disagreement is insufficient to give rise

to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the

court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 

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 “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: May 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00514-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 05/18/06 Page 5 of 5