Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01386/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01386-7/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

EDWARD TURNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D. ADAMS, et.al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-1386 REC DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

March 17, 2006. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Plaintiff names Warden D. Adams, G. Martinez, K. Nguyen, B. Smith, Ruff, Kyle, Snow,

Jimenez and Bowling all employed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

(“CSATF”). Plaintiff makes various allegations related to the inadequacy of his medical care at

CSATF. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Nguyen was hard to understand and he would get angry at plaintiff

and have him removed if he asked questions about his medical care. Plaintiff alleges that on

November 2, 2004, defendant Smith denied his appeal related to his medical issues. He alleges that

the C-Yard Clinic defendants (Ruff, Kyle, Snow and MTA’s Jimenez, Wilson and Bowling) all

participated in the denial of his medical care on their own shifts. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ruff

and Smith allowed plaintiff to suffer for weeks without his medication despite having a prescription

from his doctor. Plaintiff contends that all of the named defendants acted intentionally with

knowledge of plaintiff’s suffering. 

Medical Care Claims

As plaintiff was previously advised, a prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of "deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate

indifference” standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation

must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)

(citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than conduct

undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 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.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's

civil rights have been abridged, "the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere

'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action." Broughton

v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A]

complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does

not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995);

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs.,

Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to

establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d

1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not

support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Deliberate indifference can be manifested by prison guards intentionally denying or delaying

access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. However, where a prisoner alleges a delay in receiving medical

treatment, the prisoner must allege that the delay led to further injury. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9 Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, th

1136 (9 Cir. 1997); Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9 Cir. th th

1985). 

Although neither a physician’s negligence nor a prisoner’s disagreement with a particular

course of treatment states a claim for deliberate indifference, a prison medical staff’s acts or

omissions will constitute deliberate indifference if staff members knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to an inmate’s health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. Prison officials are

deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they “interfere with treatment

once prescribed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. The Ninth Circuit has found deliberate

indifference where prison officials “deliberately ignore the express orders of a prisoner’s prior

physician for reasons unrelated to the medical needs of the prisoner.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d

1062, 1066 (9 Cir. 1992)(reversing summary judgment where prison officials forced prisoner to

th

endure a plane flight that resulted in ear injury, in direct contravention of a treating physician’s

previous orders); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989)(per

curium)(reversing summary judgment where medical staff knew that pretrial detainee had head

injury, but prescribed contraindicated medications, disregarding evidence of complications to which

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

they had been specifically alerted by private treating physician); Tolbert v. Eyman, 434 F.2d 625 (9th

Cir. 1970)(finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where warden refused to authorize

prisoner’s receipt of medicine that had been previously prescribed by a physician); Cf. McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9 Cir. 1992)(where surgery recommended by prisoner’s prior th

physician was severely delayed, court was unable hold doctors liable because prison administrators,

not the doctors, were responsible for scheduling treatment).

 The Courts of other federal Circuits have also found deliberate indifference where prison

officials ignore a previous physician’s treatment plan. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3 Cir. rd

1990)(finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where prison officials ignored private

hospital’s treatment orders and refused inmate’s access to prescribed medication); Gill v. Mooney,

824 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1987)(finding cognizable claim where prison officials refused to permit

plaintiff to participate in exercise program prescribed by doctor); Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055

(7th Cir. 1987)(finding cognizable claim where prisoner alleged that prison officials made him travel

and carry a heavy box, causing a surgical incision to gape open, in violation of prior medical orders);

Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 983, cited with approval

by Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105 n.10 (finding deliberate indifference where prison staff forced

post-surgical prisoner-patient to walk, ignoring warnings from hospital personnel that inmate should

not be moved); see also Carl T. Drechsler, Annotation, Relief Under Federal Civil Rights Acts to

State Prisoners Complaining of Denial of Medical Care, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 279 (1976)(recognizing that,

on the whole, courts do not condone the practice of prison officials ignoring orders rendered by a

prisoner’s previous physician). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state cognizable claims for deliberate indifference to a

serious medical need as to defendants Nguyen, Ruff and Smith but not as to the other named

defendants. While plaintiff makes specific allegations against these three defendants, he makes only

general statements as to the other named defendants. As plaintiff was previously advised, although

the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646,

649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Plaintiff has failed to do so with regard to

the other named defendants.

Supervisory Liability

In addition, supervisory personnel, such as Warden Adams, are generally not liable under

section 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore,

when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th

Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941

(1979). To show a prima facie case of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege facts indicating that

supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional

rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or implemented a

policy "so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights" and is "the moving

force of the constitutional violation." Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). As in his original complaint, plaintiff has failed to allege

sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim against Warden Adams. 

Conclusion

In summary, the Court finds that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state cognizable

claims against defendants Nguyen, Ruff and Smith but not as to the other named defendants. The

Court therefore recommends that this action proceed only as to these defendants and that the

remaining defendants be dismissed from this action. The Court does not recommend that plaintiff be

given leave to amend because he was given that option previously and was unable to cure the

deficiencies in the complaint. By separate Order, the court will send plaintiff the USM 285 forms to

proceed with service on defendants Nguyen, Ruff and Smith. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed only against defendants Nguyen, Smith and Ruff on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claims; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants be dismissed for failure to state

any claims upon which relief may be granted.

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 6

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 twenty (20)

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: February 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01386-LJO-DLB Document 22 Filed 02/12/07 Page 6 of 6