Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06018-11/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

ALRED BROWN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDGAR CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-6018-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 82)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART(Doc.

78)

Plaintiff, Alfred Brown (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On October 6, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendant Bunker’s motion to

dismiss be denied on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claim

and granted on Plaintiff’s ADA claim. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the Findings and

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On

October 25, 2005, Defendant Bunker filed objections. On November

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 120 Filed 02/21/06 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

1, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time and, in the

meantime, filed objections on December 12, 2005. However, on

December 15, 2005, the court granted Plaintiff an additional

thirty (30) days within which to respond, which crossed in the

mail with Plaintiff’s objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this 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 by proper analysis.

In his objections, Defendant Bunker contends that the

amended complaint fails to state a claim against him for

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. Defendant

Bunker argues that upon learning about the problems with

Plaintiff’s wheelchair, he called the clinic and was told it was

being handled. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint generally must

satisfy only the minimal notice pleading requirements of Rule

8(a)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) requires only that the complaint include

"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Porter

v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9 Cir. 2002). “This simplified th

notice pleading standard relies on liberal discovery rules and

summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and

to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.

A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Rule 8 contains a “powerful

presumption against rejecting pleadings for failure to state a

claim.” Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9 Cir. th

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 120 Filed 02/21/06 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

3

2003) (quoting Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 248-49

(9 Cir.1997)). Rule 8 does not require a claimant to set out th

in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim, and the

defendant only needs to be given fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Lee v.

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9 Cir. 2001) (citing th

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and

Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) and Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

Here, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Bunker was

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by not ensuring

that his wheelchair was fixed. 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). A prison official is deliberately

indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk

of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct.

1970, 1984 (1994). Here, Defendant Bunker may well be able to

establish in a motion for summary judgment or at trial that his

response to Plaintiff’s medical needs was reasonable and he had

no ability to fix the wheelchair or order anyone else to fix the

wheelchair. However, it is not clear “that no relief could be

granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent

with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512 (quoting

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). Thus, the

court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the deliberate

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 120 Filed 02/21/06 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

indifference claim meets the applicable pleading standards.

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate

Judge erred in recommending the court dismiss the ADA claim. The

elements for such a claim are: (1) that the plaintiff is a

handicapped person; (2) that he is otherwise qualified; and (3)

that the defendants' actions either (a) excluded his

participation in or denied him the benefits of a service,

program, or activity; or (b) otherwise subjected him to

discrimination on the basis of his physical or mental handicap. 

Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 455 (9 Cir.1996). In other th

words, the plaintiff must allege that he was denied the benefits

of the services, programs, or activities of the prison, or has

been subjected to discrimination because of his alleged

disability. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9 Cir.1997). th

Here, the complaint fails to allege how Defendants discriminated

against Plaintiff and what service, program, or activities

Plaintiff was denied. The complaint’s allegations are

insufficient to state a claim for a violation of the ADA. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 6,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed May 18, 2005, is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendant Bunker’s motion to dismiss this action

in its entirety for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, and

judgment be entered is DENIED;

b. Defendant Bunker’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment medical claim for failure to state a clam is

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 120 Filed 02/21/06 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

DENIED; and,

c. Defendant Bunker’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

ADA claim is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06018-LJO-DLB Document 120 Filed 02/21/06 Page 5 of 5