Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00317/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00317-2/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

DEWEY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN GALEY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING ACTION BE 

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 

SECTION 1983

(Doc. 9)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Dewey Mitchell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 6, 2014. On October 9, 2014, the 

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2014. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 7
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

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, 

brings this action against Licensed Vocational Nurse Galey, Dr. Biol, Physician Assistant S. 

Hitchman, and Chief Medical Officer Chapnick for violating his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution with respect to his diabetes while he was at Avenal 

State Prison in 2012. 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff omitted certain relevant allegations from his amended 

complaint, which is briefer than his original complaint and which lacks the exhibits attached to his 

original complaint. “A party cannot amend pleadings to ‘directly contradict an earlier assertion 

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 7
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

made in the same proceeding,’” Air Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand 

Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th 

Cir. 1990)), and given the omissions, the Court will consider both pleadings in determining 

whether Plaintiff’s allegations support any viable Eighth Amendment claims,

In his original complaint, as summarized in the first screening order, Plaintiff alleged as 

follows: 

Plaintiff alleges that on or around November 1, 2012, Defendant Galey injected 

him with an incorrect dosage of insulin, and he began to feel dizzy and see spots 

within fifteen minutes of the injection. Plaintiff returned to the B Facility medical 

clinic and Defendant Galey checked his blood sugar level, which was 63. 

Defendant Galey gave Plaintiff Glucose 15 and called the trauma center. Plaintiff 

began to sweat profusely and he passed out. Defendant Galey gave Plaintiff more 

glucose, and during Plaintiff’s transportation to the trauma center, he went in and 

out of consciousness.

Plaintiff was not transported to an outside hospital, and he fought for his life for 

four hours. Plaintiff alleges that his blood sugar level was rising and falling in 

rapid succession, 300 one minute and 30 the next minute. Further, Plaintiff was not 

stabilized until 0200 hours.

Next, Plaintiff alleges that ASP medical staff failed to provide him with a special 

diabetic diet, and the regular diet did not provide him with proper nutrients because

the nutritional value of the meals came from starch and carbohydrates. On October 

5, 2012, a physician assistant at ASP told Plaintiff he was not getting a special diet, 

and Defendant Chapnick told him he did not need a special diabetic diet because he 

was on the “Heart Healthy Diet.” (Comp., p. 10.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that 

the Heart Healthy Diet did not provide him with proper nutrition, and that the 

failure to provide him with a special diabetic diet contributed to the further 

deterioration of his health.

Doc. 8, Order, 2:25-3:13.)

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or around November 1, 2012, 

“Defendant Galey injected Plaintiff with a [deadly] lethal combination of insulin which caused the 

Plaintiff to go into diabetic shock.” (Doc. 9, Amend. Comp., p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Galey had given Plaintiff his insulin injection on numerous occasions, he knew giving 

the wrong dosage would cause diabetic shock, and he gave Plaintiff the wrong dosage anyway.

Subsequently, two MTAs revived Plaintiff by administering sugar shots and food, saving 

his life, but Defendant Biol, who was in the TTA,1sent him back to his cell while he was still 

 

1 Trauma Treatment Area. (Doc. 1, Comp., p. 3.)

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 7
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

unstable and in the absence of any testing to determine why Plaintiff was going in and out of 

consciousness and his blood sugar was fluctuating. Plaintiff “fell out again” and returned to the 

TTA, where he was eventually stabilized at 0200 hours. (Id., p. 4.) 

Next, Plaintiff alleges that while he was at the El Dorado County Jail, he was provided 

with a diabetic diet and “proper” insulin dosages. (Id.) When he arrived at ASP, Defendant 

Chapnick reviewed his medical file and determined he did not need a diabetic diet and he needed 

an insulin dosage increase. Plaintiff alleges that a heart healthy diet does not keep diabetics’ blood 

sugar levels in check, and Defendant Chapnick increased his insulin dosage to compensate for the 

heart healthy diet.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hitchman failed to provide Plaintiff with a diabetic 

diet and diabetics face deterioration as a result of improper diet. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers 

from retinopathy, which has caused his eyesight to worsen, and his kidneys are affected by high 

A1C levels.2 

Plaintiff alleges that “[i]n looking at the totality-of-the-circumstances the defendant’s 

actions and inactions were and are the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s declining health,” and “[t]heir 

actions combined show that they were ‘deliberately indifferent’ to Plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs in treating his diabetes.” (Id.) 

B. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claims

1. Legal Standard

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012) ), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

 

2 The Court may take judicial notice of information on government websites not subject to reasonable dispute, Fed. R. 

Evid. 201; Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010); Siebert v. Gene Security 

Network, Inc., __ F.Supp.3d __, __, 2015 WL 6765835, at *1 n.2 (N.D.Cal. 2014), and it takes judicial notice of the 

fact that “[t]he A1C test is a blood test that provides information about a person’s average levels of blood glucose... 

over the past three months,” http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/A1CTest/#1 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health website).

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 7
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

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (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) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 

or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which 

entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

2. Findings

Diabetes, which in Plaintiff’s case requires treatment via insulin injection, unquestionably 

qualifies as a serious medical need, and the Court sympathizes with the challenges diabetes can 

present. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014); Lemire v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013). However, to state a viable claim for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff must also allege adequate facts to support a claim 

that each named defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to Plaintiff’s health. 

Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074.

a. Defendant Galey

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim that Defendant Galey acted with 

subjective deliberate indifference by intentionally administering the wrong dosage of insulin to 

Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Galey administered the wrong dosage despite 

having previously administered insulin to Plaintiff and knowing the harm that could befall 

someone given the wrong dosage, his allegations across both pleadings simply do not suggest that 

Defendant Galey knowingly and intentionally administered the wrong insulin dosage to Plaintiff. 

While Plaintiff clearly alleges resulting harm, an error such as this does not “become a 

constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977); Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1068; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1081-82; Snow, 681 F.3d 

at 987-88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

b. Defendant Biol

With respect to Defendant Biol, Plaintiff’s allegations also fall short of supporting a claim 

that Biol knowingly disregarded a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff’s health. Between both 

pleadings, Plaintiff’s allegations show that he returned to the facility clinic about fifteen minutes 

after receiving the incorrect insulin injection, when he became dizzy and started seeing spots. 

Defendant Galey checked Plaintiff’s sugar level, administrated Glucose 15, and called the TTA. 

While awaiting a response, Plaintiff started sweating and passed out; and Defendant Galey 

administered more glucose. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Biol subsequently sent him back to 

his cell while he was still unstable and without conducting further tests. Plaintiff thereafter

returned back to the TTA, where he was ultimately stabilized after many hours. 

Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Biol failed to conduct further testing, Plaintiff’s 

allegations establish that, at the very minimum, he received some measure of assessment by 

Defendant Galey and some measure of treatment first by Galey and then by two MTAs. Section 

1983 provides no redress for mere disagreements between prisoners and medical staff, and based 

on the facts alleged in both pleadings, Plaintiff’s allegations evidence his mere disagreement with

Defendant Biol’s medical evaluation and decision to return him to his cell; there is no factual 

support for a reasonable inference that Defendant Biol knew of and disregarded a substantial risk 

of harm to Plaintiff’s health when he determined Plaintiff could return to his cell. 

c. Defendants Chapnick and Hitchman

Finally, with respect to a special diabetic diet, Plaintiff’s disagreement with prison 

officials’ determination that a heart-healthy diet met his dietary needs does not support a claim 

under section 1983. Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23. Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant Chapnick reviewed his medical file and determined that he did not need a diabetic 

diet and his insulin needed increased. In addition, Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s original complaint 

evidences that he was interviewed regarding his request for a diabetic diet, during the course of 

which his laboratory studies were reviewed. Plaintiff’s disagreement with medical staff’s 

determination that the standard “Heart Healthy Diet” sufficed and he lacked any medical need for 

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

a more specialized diet does not give rise to a viable claim for relief under section 1983. (Doc. 1, 

Comp., Ex. B.) 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 

section 1983. Plaintiff was previously provided with an opportunity to amend and based on the 

allegations in both pleadings, and the exhibits included with the original complaint, further leave 

to amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS 

that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

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 

thirty (30) 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00317-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 05/27/15 Page 7 of 7