Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00433/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00433-1/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

ALVIN J. SCHROEDER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES A. YATES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00433-OWW GSA PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 9)

I. Procedural History

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court byLocal Rule 302 pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the Court is the December 27, 2010, first amended

complaint, filed in response to an earlier order dismissing the original complaint and granting

Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), brings this civil

rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at PVSP. Plaintiff

names as defendants the following individuals employed at PVSP: Warden James Yates; Chief

Medical Officer F. Igbinoza. Plaintiff also names as defendants the Secretary of the CDCR and J.

Clark Kelso, the Federal Medical Receiver.

Plaintiff claims that defendants have subjected him to exposure to ValleyFever. Specifically,

1

Case 1:10-cv-00433-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 01/04/11 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

Plaintiff alleges that defendants “had prior knowledge that San Joaquin Valley Fever has caused

severe injury and death to many staff and inmates in the endemic area in which this prison is

located.” (Am. Compl. ¶ IV.) In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he suffers from

emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 

A. Valley Fever

The courts of this district have found such claims to be insufficient. “[T]o the extent that

Plaintiff is attempting to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim for the mere fact that he was confined

in a location where Valley Fever spores existed which caused him to contract Valley Fever, he is

advised that no courts have held that exposure to Valley Fever spores presents an excessive risk to

inmate health.” King v. Avenal State Prison, 2009 WL 546212, *4 (E.D. Cal., Mar 4, 2009); see also

Tholmer v. Yates, 2009 WL 174162, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2009)(“To the extent Plaintiff seeks to

raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to the general conditions of confinement at PVSP, Plaintiff

fails to allege facts that indicate Defendants are responsible for the conditions of which Plaintiff

complains.” such as “acts of omissions of Defendants have caused an excessively high risk of

contracting Valley Fever at PVSP.” Plaintiff cannot, therefore, hold defendants liable for his

exposure to Valley Fever.

B. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in furthersignificant injury or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting 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) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused

by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay

2

Case 1:10-cv-00433-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 01/04/11 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

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 at 1060 (citing Shapely

v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

In the order dismissing the original complaint, Plaintiff was advised that in order to hold

defendants liable, he must allege facts indicating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

emphysema or COPD. Plaintiff was specifically advised that exposure to Valley Fever, of itself,

does not subject defendants to liability. Defendants may, however, be held liable under the Eighth

Amendment for failure to treat Plaintiff’s symptoms, or for failure to treat Plaintiff’s COPD. The

original complaint failed to state a claim because Plaintiff did not allege any conduct on behalf of

the named defendants indicating that they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s condition, as

that term is defined above. Plaintiff was advised that he must allege some facts indicating that

defendants interfered with, delayed or prevented treatment for his emphysema and COPD. 

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff re-states the allegations of the original complaint. 

Plaintiff adds the allegation that defendants had prior knowledge that Valley Fever existed at PVSP

before Plaintiff was transferred. Plaintiff was clearly advised that such an allegation, of itself, fails

to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff does not allege any conduct on behalf of any of the named

defendants regarding the treatment, or failure to treat, his COPD, emphysema, or any symptoms

associated with Valley Fever. Simply put, defendants can not be held liable for the presence of

Valley Fever. They may, however, be held liable for failure to treat a serious medical condition that

they knew of. There are no such allegations here. The first amended complaint must therefore be

dismissed. The Court will recommend that the first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice

for failure to state a federal claim upon which the court could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809

F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to th

amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

3

Case 1:10-cv-00433-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 01/04/11 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

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any 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.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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 objections within the specified time may th

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00433-OWW -GSA Document 10 Filed 01/04/11 Page 4 of 4