Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145-0/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

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

JESSE J. MONTIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv02145 DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR 

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO 

PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

on December 28, 2011. He names Pleasant Valley State Prison Warden James Yates, Chief 

Medical Officer Felix Igbinosa, Dr. R. Taher-Pour, Dr. Wynn, P.A. Randolph Wilson, P.A. 

Barry Green and P.A. R. Das as Defendants.1

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 7, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 8
2

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

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 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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id.

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”), where the 

events at issue occurred. Since 2007, Plaintiff has been on pain medication for severe back pain. 

The medications included Tylenol and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”). 

In March 2008, after months of complaining of severe pain and other sensations, Plaintiff 

underwent an x-ray that revealed two degenerative/herniated discs in his back. In March 2010, 

Plaintiff was prescribed a combination of Gabapentin and Tramidol, and this combination 

worked well in controlling his pain and other symptoms. 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 8
3

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 in or about June 2010, physicians on “A-Yard” began systematically 

discontinuing inmate pain medication pursuant to a policy being enforced by Defendant 

Igbinosa.2

On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff saw Defendant Physician’s Assistant Wilson and learned 

that he had recommended to the physician who would see Plaintiff that his medications should 

be stopped and he should only be prescribed NSAIDs. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Wilson 

knew that NSAIDs never worked for Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants also knew 

that he had active liver disease and that NSAIDs could therefore be harmful.

On November 26, 2010, Defendant Taher-Pour discontinued Plaintiff’s Gabapentin. 

Plaintiff told Dr. Taher-Pour that he had tried other forms of medications, but that they did not 

work. Dr. Taher-Pour told Plaintiff that she was stopping the medication on recommendation of 

Defendant Wilson, and that she would only prescribe the NSAID Ibuprofen pursuant to policy. 

Immediately after his Gabapentin was stopped, Plaintiff began submitting medical 

request forms complaining that the numbness and tingling sensations had come back. He was 

told by the nurse that pursuant to Defendant Wilson’s order, his medication was not to be 

renewed or reordered. 

On December 10, 2010, Defendant Physician’s Assistant Green discontinued Plaintiff’s 

Tramidol. Plaintiff alleges that this was done without an examination, as Plaintiff was sick that 

day and did not make it to his appointment. 

Plaintiff continued to submit sick-call forms complaining of severe pain. He was 

informed that per Defendant Wilson’s orders, his medications were not to be refilled or 

reordered. 

On December 26, 2010, Plaintiff was hospitalized in PVSP’s infirmary after becoming 

depressed because of the pain. While hospitalized, he saw Defendant Dr. Wynn, who stated that 

 

2

Plaintiff references exhibits throughout his complaint, but he is advised that no exhibits were attached.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 8
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

he would not do anything for Plaintiff’s pain because it had already been stopped by a previous 

doctor and he did not want to go over anyone’s head. Dr. Wynn did not respond to Plaintiff’s 

request for medication to treat his pain.

Plaintiff also saw a second doctor while hospitalized. This doctor prescribed Gabapentin 

in a lower dose to treat his pain.

Plaintiff was discharged from the infirmary on January 3, 2011, and learned that his 

Gabapentin was once again stopped. He was left without any medication to treat his severe pain. 

On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff saw Defendant Physician’s Assistant Das and explained 

his situation. Defendant Das told Plaintiff that he would not give him anything other than 

NSAIDs because his medication had already been stopped by previous doctors. Plaintiff told 

Defendant Das that he was in severe pain, unable to sleep and becoming depressed again. 

Defendant Das stated, “sorry, it’s policy.” Complaint, at 9.

Plaintiff wrote letters to Defendants Yates and Igbinosa explaining how their 

subordinates were being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. They did not 

respond to the letters.

On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant Wilson about the grievances he had 

filed. Plaintiff pointed out that he had a 2008 x-ray showing a back injury and Defendant Wilson 

responded, “oh, I guess I will have to review your chart again.” Complaint, at 10.

On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff received a response from Defendant Wilson. Defendant 

Wilson did not address any of the issues that Plaintiff had brought to his attention and stated that 

the appeal was partially granted because Plaintiff was receiving Ibuprofen. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Wilson knew this medication was inadequate to treat his back pain.

After six months, Plaintiff continues to live in severe pain, and the pain is getting worse. 

His request forms have all been ignored.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 8
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

Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges (1) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn; and (2) failure to intervene 

against Defendants Igbinosa and Yates.

C. ANALYSIS

1. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff 

must show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)) (quotation 

marks omitted). 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 

further significant 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 (quotation 

marks and citation 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. (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). Deliberate indifference may be manifested when prison officials deny, delay or 

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison 

physicians provide medical care. Id. (citation and quotations omitted). Where a prisoner is 

alleging a delay 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. Berry v. 

Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 

1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 

1997) (en banc).

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, he has alleged an Eighth Amendment medical claim 

against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 5 of 8
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

2. Failure to Intervene

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. 

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, 

prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and 

personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. 

Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to 

protect inmates from physical abuse. Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). 

To establish a violation of this duty, the inmate must establish that prison officials were 

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate’s safety. Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 834. The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. 

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer at 

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

“know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

Similarly, there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. To state a claim, 

Plaintiff must demonstrate a link between actions or omissions of each named defendant and the 

violation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.

Plaintiff alleges a failure to intervene claim against Defendants Igbinosa and Yates. 

However, he does not sufficiently allege that either Defendant knew of, and disregarded, an 

excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health of safety. Plaintiff alleges that he wrote them a letter stating 

that their subordinates were being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Simply 

sending a letter, however, does not support a presumption of knowledge. Pursuant to Iqbal, 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 6 of 8
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

Plaintiff must affirmatively allege that Defendants Yates and Igbinosa received the letter and 

knew of its contents. 

For the same reasons, Plaintiff has not linked Defendants Yates and Igbinosa to any 

violation of his rights.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants Yates and Igbinosa. 

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint states an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendants

Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn, but the complaint fails to state a claim for relief 

against Defendants Yates and Igbinosa. Plaintiff may either (1) proceed on his original 

complaint against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn, on his Eighth 

Amendment medical claim, or (2) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in 

this order. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607

(7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Further, Plaintiff is notified that his amended 

complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

If Plaintiff is willing to proceed on his original complaint against Defendants Green, 

Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn, on his Eighth Amendment medical claim only, Plaintiff 

may notify the Court in writing. The Court will then dismiss Plaintiff’s other claims and 

Defendants, and provide Plaintiff with further instructions regarding service of a summons and 

the complaint on Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and 

Wynn on the Eighth Amendment medical claim.

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 02/01/13 Page 8 of 8