Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06209/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06209-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK ALLEN WILSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 6209 LJO WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

CALIF. DEPT. OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the

ofist amended complaint filed on May 13, 2005.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections at the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility (SATF), brings this action against defendant correctional officials

employed by the Department of Corrections at California State Prison

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 1 of 12
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

2

Corcoran. Plaintiff brings claims of deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs, as well as claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Plaintiff names as defendants the

California Department of Corrections and fifty individual defendants. 

On August 25, 2003, findings and recommendations were

entered, recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative. The

findings and recommendations noted the following.

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of 66 pages of typewritten

narrative, and sets forth all of plaintiff’s claims by date of occurrence. 

Plaintiff sets forth specific allegations of conduct on the following dates: 

12/14/00; 12/23/00; 12/28/00; 1/10/01; 1/18/01; 1/22/01; 1/23/01; 2/14/01; 2/16/01;

3/1/01; 3/23/01; 4/4/01; 4/13/01; 4/15/01; 4/24/01; 5/1/01; 5/5/01; 5/8/01; 5/16/01;

5/20/01; 5/31/01; 6/1/01; 6/6/01; 6/25/01; 6/28/01; 7/3/01; 7/8/01; 7/25/01; 8/1/01;

9/13/01; 10/8/01; 10/10/01; 10/21/01; 10/25/01; 10/30/01; 11/7/01; 11/8/01; 11/13/01;

11/14/01; 11/16/01; 11/19/01; 11/20/01; 11/21/01; 11/22/01; 11/26/01; 11/27/01;

(plaintiff alleges that from 11/17/001 to 1/16/02 he was denied breakfast,

lunch and dinner); 11/28/01; 11/29/01; 12/12/01; 12/31/01; 1/22/02; 1/16/02;

1/30/02; 2/12/02; 3/12/02; 3/18/02; 5/3/02; 5/17/02.

Prior to the filing of this complaint, plaintiff filed a civil action

challenging his medical care, and setting forth ADA claims. Wilson v.

California Department of Corrections, et al., CV F 01 6538 REC LJO P. In

that complaint, plaintiff names all of the defendants that are named in this

case, with the exception of defendant Ortiz. On October 21, 2002, an order

was entered, dismissing that complaint, granting plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint. The summary of allegations in that complaint

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 12
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

3

follows.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is fifty-seven pages

long and consists of a lengthy list of incidents, in

chronological order, that plaintiff believes

demonstrates a violation of his constitutional

rights. The majority of allegations relate to

plaintiff’s medical treatment, or lack thereof. The

length of plaintiff’s amended complaint and the

sheer number of separate incidents make it

difficult to concisely summarize plaintiff’s

allegations. In the paragraphs that follow, the

court will summarize plaintiff’s allegations as

succinctly as possible.

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he

was attacked by another inmate on May 13, 2000 at

California Men’s Colony East in San Luis Obispo.

Plaintiff’s skull was crushed and he suffers from

permanent double vision as a result. Plaintiff is

also mobility-impaired due to neck and back

problems, and a type II diabetic. Plaintiff alleges

he was transferred to Corcoran in order to

accommodate his disabilities, and was to have

follow-up surgery on the muscles around his left

eye to remedy his chronic double vision, which

causes him to run into people and things. Plaintiff

alleges he has been under the care of defendant Dr.

Meis for his medical problems since his arrival at

Corcoran on December 14, 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Flores denied him

his diabetic sack lunch for several days in 

December of 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a request for singlecell accommodation on January 10, 2001, because

he ran into people and things due to his double

vision, and was being threatened by his cellmate. 

Defendants Lowden, Yamamoto, and DeOchoa

denied plaintiff’s request and continued to house

him with his cellmate, a CCCMS (Correctional

Clinical Case Management) inmate.

Plaintiff alleges that he was interviewed for the

first time by defendant Dr. Meis on January 18,

2001. Plaintiff informed defendant Meas. that he

needed follow-up surgery to repair his eye and sack

lunches, fingersticks, and exercise to control his

diabetes. Plaintiff informed defendant Meas. that

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 3 of 12
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

4

he was checking his blood sugar four times a day at

CMC-East. Defendant Meas. told plaintiff he would

not be allowed daily fingersticks to monitor his

blood sugar. 

On January 22, 2001, defendant Meas. wrote orders

for nightly sack lunches, extra toilet paper weekly

for recurrent diarrhea, and a cane, and said he

would make the necessary referral to an outside

ophthalmology surgeon. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Meas. denied, delayed, or interfered with

plaintiff’s medical treatment.

On February 2, 2001, plaintiff was seen by

defendant Dr. Perkinson, an ophthalmologist.

Defendant Perkinson told plaintiff that his vision

had worsened and that he would make the

necessary referral to an outside ophthalmologist.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Perkinson

intentionally failed to make the referral.

On February 9, 2001, plaintiff was seen by

defendant Meas. regarding his need for single-cell

status due to his double vision. Defendant Meas.

said he would look into it. Plaintiff was again seen

by defendant Meas. on February 14, 2001, at which

time defendant wrote a medical order for a single

cell. 

On February 16, 2001, plaintiff was interviewed by

defendant DeOchoa. Defendant DeOchoa told him

that he did not care about any doctor’s orders and

that plaintiff was not going to get a single cell. On

March 1, 2001, plaintiff was interviewed at

Institutional Classification Review and denied

single-cell status by defendants Yamamoto and

DeOchoa, despite defendant Meas.’s medical order.

On March 23, 2001, plaintiff requested permission

to have monthly food packages sent to him by his

family in order to supplement his dietary intake to

help control his diabetes. Defendants Meas., Yee,

Lowden, Stockman, and Spreister denied his

request and denied him a therapeutic medical diet. 

Plaintiff alleges he is forced to eat the food in the

dining hall, which is high in sugar, saturated fats,

and salt, and he is not allowed to supplement his

intake. 

Plaintiff’s request for a medical order for

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 4 of 12
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

5

therapeutic exercise was granted on April 10, 2001

and plaintiff’s request for a medical order for a

wheelchair was granted on April 23, 2001. Plaintiff

alleges defendant Lowden only allowed him to go to

the yard for one hour with the Loss-of-Privilege

inmates, and denied him daily exercise.

On April 15, 2001, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal

directed at defendant Warden Calderon. Plaintiff

requested that he enforce the medical orders for

single-cell status and daily exercise. Plaintiff

alleges defendants Lowden and Stockman

interfered with these orders, and that his appeal

was denied. 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Becerra failed to

respond to plaintiff’s appeals and that defendant

Castillo intentionally denied plaintiff his right to

appeal.

On May 5, 2001, plaintiff filed a request seeking

single-cell status, wheelchair access, exercise twice

a day, double mattresses, and double pillows. 

Plaintiff also requested to be transferred to

another institution close to Los Angeles. Defendant

Lowden denied plaintiff’s requests, and defendant

Castillo denied plaintiff his right to appeal.

On May 1, 2001, plaintiff requested a blood testing

machine and testing supplies so that he could

monitor his blood sugar in his cell, because the

medical department continued to deny plaintiff

fingersticks. Defendant Meas. denied plaintiff’s

request. 

On May 5, 2001, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal

requesting a transfer to a facility closer to Los

Angeles that would provide treatment for his

disabilities, due to family hardship and his

worsening condition. Defendants Lowden and

Stockman denied his request.

Plaintiff alleges defendant Lowden occasionally

allowed him to walk in the dayroom but denied

plaintiff the opportunity to exercise on the yard on

a daily basis. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Lowden denied him daily exercise from May 18,

2001 through May 27, 2001. 

On May 25, 2001, plaintiff met with defendants

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 5 of 12
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

6

Lowden and Becerra in the program office

regarding his requests for a transfer, single-cell

status, daily exercise, and double pillows. Plaintiff

informed them that defendant Meas.’s orders were

not being followed, he was being discriminated

against by staff because of his disabilities, and he

was being threatened by his cellmate on a daily

basis. Defendants denied his requests for a

transfer and single-cell status, but said he would

receive his pillows. 

On May 31, 2001, plaintiff filed a request for daily

showers because he was getting sores on his back

and buttocks. Defendant Lowden denied his

appeal.

On June 1, 2001, plaintiff was summoned to the

program office to see defendant Lowden. On his

way out of the cell, plaintiff ran into his cellmate

because of his double vision. Plaintiff’s cellmate

then tried to stab plaintiff with the pen he had in

his hand. Plaintiff warded off the attack by

blocking his cellmate’s hand. His cellmate then

begged him not to tell anyone. Plaintiff met with

defendant Lowden but did not say anything about

the incident. When he returned, his property was

on the dayroom floor and he was told he was

moving to a different building.

On October 8, 2001, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal

seeking soft sole shoes. Plaintiff alleges that the

state-issued shoes caused him severe pain. A

podiatrist ordered x-rays and said the shoes would

be ordered when he saw the plaintiff at the next

follow-up visit. Plaintiff alleges defendant Dr.

Pillor denied him a follow-up visit with the

podiatrist and denied his request for soft-soled

shoes.

On October 21, 2001, plaintiff appealed the denial of

his nightly diabetic sack lunch. Plaintiff alleges

defendant Problete denied plaintiff his sack

lunches and fingersticks. Plaintiff alleges

defendants Thompson and Problete denied him his

pain medication and refused to deliver his pain

medication to his cell. 

On November 8, 2001, defendant Pillor denied

plaintiff’s request for soft sole shoes, despite

plaintiff’s explanation that he was provided the

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7

shoes at three prior institutions. On November 13,

2001, defendant Pillor wrote plaintiff a new form

1845 (ADA verification) specifically stating that

plaintiff was a “DPW-disability placement

wheelchair.” (Amend. Comp., 33:16-18.) Plaintiff

alleges this verification was necessary in order to

transfer him to an institution that could

accommodate his disabilities. Plaintiff alleges his

medical file was subsequently tampered with

because he was told the form did not exist. 

On November 14, 2001, plaintiff requested that his

medical chronos be renewed. Defendant Pillor

stated that he was rescinding all of defendant

Meas.’s medical orders. Plaintiff alleges he was

therefore denied a wheelchair to ambulate to the

review of his request, causing his request to be

denied.

On November 16, 2001, plaintiff was being pushed

by another inmate to the yard toilet. Plaintiff was

in severe pain and it was urgent he reach the toilet. 

Defendant Aguirre stopped the other inmate from

helping plaintiff, said plaintiff did not need any

help, and said that if plaintiff needed to use the

toilet, he could get there like everyone else.

On November 19, 2001, defendant Thompson did

not deliver plaintiff’s pain medication to his cell.

On November 27, 2001, plaintiff filed a request for

gloves because his hands were raw from wheeling

himself around the prison grounds. Plaintiff was

denied access to a wheelchair to get to the

interview so his request was denied. Defendant

Pillor rescinded defendant Meas.’s medical order

for a wheelchair, and defendant Problete

confiscated plaintiff’s wheelchair from in front of

his cell. Plaintiff alleges that, if it were not for

other inmates sliding food to him under his door,

he would have been without breakfast, lunch, and

dinner for sixty-one days. Plaintiff alleges that he

had no access to the medical clinic, dining hall, law

library, yard, visiting room, etc. Plaintiff alleges he

could only walk twenty to twenty-five feet without

having to sit or fall down due to the pain in his legs

and feet.

On November 28, 2001, defendant Thompson denied

plaintiff’s request for a wheelchair to ambulate to

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 7 of 12
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

8

his medical appointment. Plaintiff tried to walk to

the nearest table but fell down with chest pains

and shortness of breath. Plaintiff was then

transported to the hospital by ambulance. 

On November 29, 2001, plaintiff’s parents came to

visit him and he was called for the visit. Another

inmate offered to lend plaintiff his wheelchair. 

Plaintiff accepted and exited his housing unit in

the wheelchair. Defendant Spreister approached

plaintiff and told him that if he wanted to go to

visitation, he would have to walk like everyone

else. Defendant pulled the wheelchair out from

under plaintiff. Plaintiff was carried to the visiting

room by two other inmates.

After the visit was over, one of the two inmates who

helped plaintiff to the visiting room helped plaintiff

from the visiting room. On the way back, plaintiff

collapsed from the pain. Defendant Spreister was

summoned and called defendant Problete. Problete

arrived with a wheelchair and took plaintiff back

to his cell. Plaintiff was subsequently issued a

Rules Violation Report for misusing state property.

On November 27, 2001, defendant Hill refused to

deliver plaintiff’s mail to his cell.

On December 27, 2001, plaintiff requested a special

therapeutic medical diet. Plaintiff alleges his due

process rights were violated when defendants

Castillo and Bendon combined his appeals. 

On December 31, 2001, plaintiff wrote an inmate

appeal grieving the denial of his medication. 

Plaintiff alleges his due process rights were

violated when the appeals were combined.

On December 12, 2001, plaintiff submitted an

inmate appeal requesting that the Rules Violation

Report be dismissed. Plaintiff alleges he was

denied a fair hearing. 

On January 26, 2002, plaintiff was given back his

wheelchair and allowed to ambulate around the

grounds.

On January 30, 2002, plaintiff was seen by

defendant Dr. Bhatt. Dr. Bhatt told plaintiff that

his wheelchair would not be taken from plaintiff

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 8 of 12
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

9

again, that he would write the necessary order for

the wheelchair, and that he recommended plaintiff

get exercise in the dayroom and on the yard. 

On February 21, 2002, plaintiff was seen by Dr.

Brown, who told plaintiff that no orders had been

written for his wheelchair and that there was no

indication in his medical records that he had been

seen by Dr. Bhatt. 

On the same day, plaintiff was interviewed by

defendant Castillo regarding his appeal of the

Rules Violation Report for misuse of state property. 

Defendant Castillo denied plaintiff’s inmate appeal.

On March 12, 2002, defendant Dr. Bhatt wrote a

new CDC-1845 form regarding plaintiff’s

disabilities stating that plaintiff was to have a

wheelchair on an “as needed” basis. Plaintiff

alleges defendant Dr. Bhatt failed to check the

appropriate box on the form that would have

prevented future confiscation of plaintiff’s

wheelchair. 

On March 18, 2002, defendant Dr. Bhatt wrote a

medical order for plaintiff to have a wheelchair on

an “as needed” basis. 

On May 3, 2002, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Afinawitz,

an ophthalmologist. Plaintiff gave Dr. Afinawitz a

detailed description of his medical history and told

Dr. Afinawitz that he was supposed to have followup surgery to repair his eye muscles. Dr. Afinawitz

told plaintiff he would make the necessary referral

to plaintiff could be taken back to San Joaquin

Valley Hospital in Bakersfield. Plaintiff alleges he

saw Dr. Afinawitz on May 10, 2002, and May 17,

2002. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Afinawitz denied,

delayed, and interfered with plaintiff’s medical

treatment. Plaintiff alleges he continues to be

denied surgery to repair his eye muscles.

October 21, 2001 order in CV F 01 6538 REC LJO P, 3:1-8:11.

The dates of the alleged conduct, as well as the conduct

alleged, are similar to the facts set forth in the October 1, 2002, amended

complaint in this case. The factual allegations do not materially differ. 

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Plaintiff currently has a deadline to file a second amended complaint in

CV F 01 6538. On August 1, 2003, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of

time in which to do so. The October 21, 2002, order identified the

deficiencies in the complaint. 

In the August 25, 2003, recommendation the court found the

complaint duplicative of the July 10, 2002, amended complaint in CV F 01

6538. Plaintiff was advised that any additional factual allegations could

be set forth in that case. The court recommended that this action be

dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of CV F 01 6538 REC LJO P.

Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

Plaintiff did not challenge the factual basis of the recommendation, but

indicated that his claims in this case were statutory, not constitutional. 

Though Plaintiff is proceeding with statutory claims in the 01-6538 case,

the court vacated the findings and recommendations and granted Plaintiff

leave to file a first amended complaint.

In the first amended complaint in this action, Plaintiff sets

forth the same factual allegations as in the 01-6538 action. Plaintiff alleges

that in January of 2001 he was placed in a cell with another inmate, who

harassed Plaintiff because Plaintiff bumped into things. As a result,

Plaintiff was threatened by his cellmate. Plaintiff filed an inmate

grievance, seeking a single cell. The grievance was denied. This claim is

set forth in the 2001 case. 

Plaintiff also sets forth claims regarding a therapeutic exercise

program. Though phrased differently, this is the same conduct that is

challenged in the 2001 case. Plaintiff alleges various conspiracies

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11

regarding the response to his inmate grievances. These allegations consist

of conclusory statements and legal conclusions. Plaintiff attributes

retaliatory motives to the conduct of correctional staff in general. 

Plaintiff also sets forth various claims regarding wheelchair

access. Plaintiff alleges that he experienced difficulty in showering. 

Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he suffered bedsores and cysts that

required medical treatment. As with the other claims, Plaintiff sets forth

a lengthy narrative regarding the administrative grievance process. This

claim is also set forth in the 2001 case. 

The balance of the first amended complaint sets forth the same

generalized grievances regarding Plaintiff’s disability and his attempts at

administrative redress as are set forth in the 2001 case. Plaintiff sets fort

the same factual allegations as in the original complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed as duplicative.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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 waives all objections to the

judge’s findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

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).

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06209-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 05/31/07 Page 12 of 12