Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00018/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00018-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY H. NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00018-NONE-SKO (PC) 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THE

ACTION

(Doc. No. 12)

Plaintiff Larry H. Navarro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Plaintiff filed his original complaint alleging that defendants, medical personnel at the 

prison where plaintiff is incarcerated, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. No. 1 at 3–4.) In 

addition, plaintiff brought a claim for negligence under state law. (Id. at 5.) The assigned 

magistrate judge issued a screening order finding that plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim 

under the Eighth Amendment and explained that this federal court would not likely exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim so long as there was no viable federal claim 

pending. (Doc. No. 8 at 6, 11.) Plaintiff then filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) 

Case 1:19-cv-00018-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 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

reasserting both claims with little additional facts. (Doc. No. 9 at 3–4.) The assigned magistrate 

judge issued a second screening order dismissing the FAC because it failed to state a claim but

provided plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint yet again. (Doc. No. 10 at 5–6.)

Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”) asserting a single cause of action 

under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 11 at 3–4.) In his SAC plaintiff alleges as follows. 

Plaintiff had problems with his left index finger and sought treatment from various medical 

personnel at the prison where he is incarcerated. (Id. at 3.) In 2015 and 2016, various nurses

diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from arthritis and gave him medication, but the nurses failed to 

write down the diagnosis. (Id. at 3–4.) Although not referenced in the SAC, in his FAC plaintiff 

alleged that a doctor told him that his left finger was swollen due to the cold weather and arthritis. 

(Doc. No. 9 at 3–4.) Finally, in his original complaint and in his SAC, plaintiff alleged that he 

underwent surgery in March 2017 to remove an infection and receive a bone graft on his finger 

and that he now suffers pain in his finger and his wrist. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 16–18; 11 at 5.) 

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 

the SAC be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 12.) Given that plaintiff 

had been granted two prior opportunities to amend his complaint to cure the noted deficiencies 

(see Doc. Nos. 8, 10), the assigned magistrate judge found that the granting of further leave to 

amend would be futile. (Doc. No. 12 at 1, 6.) The findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 21 days of 

service. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time to do so has passed.

The findings and recommendations correctly concluded that plaintiff’s SAC failed to state 

a claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. To state a claim for deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege: (1) “a serious 

medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain”; and (2) “the defendants’ 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 113, 1122 (9th 

Cir. 2012). With respect to the second prong, deliberate indifference “describes a state of mind 

more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires more than ordinary lack of due care for the 

Case 1:19-cv-00018-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 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

prisoner’s interests or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (internal quotations 

and citation omitted). Deliberate indifference exists where a prison official “knows that [an] 

inmate[] face[s] a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. Here, the allegations of the SAC satisfy the first 

prong of the deliberate indifference test because plaintiff alleges that he had an infection that 

caused reoccurring pain and required surgery (Doc. Nos. 9 at 3–4; 11 at 5), which is, at least at

the pleading stage, an “important” injury “worthy of . . . treatment.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 

F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). However, in his SAC plaintiff has failed to 

allege sufficient facts in support of the second prong, i.e., defendants disregarded of a known risk

to plaintiff. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. Plaintiff appears to imply, although it is not clear

from the allegations, that defendants misdiagnosed the cause of the pain to his finger as arthritis 

when the true cause was an infection. (See Doc. No. 9 at 3–4.) But a misdiagnosis, though 

potentially negligent, is not enough to allege deliberate indifference under the Eighth 

Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (explaining that “a complaint that a 

physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid 

claim” under the Eighth Amendment). Further, plaintiff alleges that he underwent surgery for his 

condition and was given medication to abate his pain (Doc. No. 11 at 3–5), which strongly 

suggests that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to his medical condition. See Farmer, 

511 U.S. at 847. The SAC therefore fails to plausibly allege that defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. 

Given that plaintiff has now had three opportunities to allege facts stating a cognizable 

claim but has failed to do so, the court finds that granting further leave to amend would be futile

in this case. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, this 

action should be dismissed with prejudice. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

/////

Case 1:19-cv-00018-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 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

Accordingly: 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are 

adopted;

2. The second amended complaint (Doc. No. 11) is dismissed with prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purposes of closure and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00018-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 4