Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05736/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05736-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT GARCIA,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5736 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT 

 STATES A COLORABLE CLAIM 

 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

 TO COMPLETE USM 285 FORM 

L. GEORGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action proceeds on the March 1, 2006,

third amended complaint. The third amended complaint is filed in response to an earlier order 

granting plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint. 

In that order, the Court noted the following. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this

civil rights action against defendant officials employed by the CDCR at at CSP Corcoran.

Plaintiff names several individual defendants in his complaint, including medical and

administrative officials. The genesis of plaintiff’s complaint is that he contends he is provided

inadequate medical care. Specifically, plaintiff was taken off of morphine and placed on another

pain medication. 

Plaintiff arrived at Corcoran in December of 2001. At the time, he was taking morphine. 

Case 1:03-cv-05736-AWI-WMW Document 25 Filed 01/09/08 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

2

 In February of 2002, plaintiff was advised by defendant George (R.N.) that she would suggest to

Dr. Castillo that he take plaintiff off of morphine, which he did. Defendant Dr. Castillo

prescribed a different pain medication for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he did so without

examining plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance, with the result that plaintiff agreed to

“re-try” the new medication. Plaintiff requested to be seen by a pain specialist.

On May 10, 2002, plaintiff was seen by a pain specialist and given an injection for his

back pain. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dr. Friedman gave plaintiff the injection in the

wrong place in retaliation for the filing of an inmate grievance requesting to be seen by a pain

specialist. Plaintiff filed another inmate grievance regarding the discontinuance of his pain

medication. Plaintiff alleges that the Chief Medical Officer approved the prescription of ultram

for plaintiff’s pain, but it was stopped at some point.

Plaintiff also alleges that, though he was prescribed an egg-crate mattress by somebody at

the pain center in Bakersfield, he is not being provided with it. 

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide medical care

to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9 Cir. 2000). “In th

order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there

must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether

medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must

examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must

determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id.

at 1132.

"[W]here a defendant has based his actions on a medical judgment that either of two

alternative courses of treatment would be medically acceptable under the circumstances, plaintiff

has failed to show deliberate indifference, as a matter of law." Jackson v. McIntosh, No. 94-

Case 1:03-cv-05736-AWI-WMW Document 25 Filed 01/09/08 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

3

16741 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 1996), citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107-08 (1976). As

Jackson continues, to "prevail under these principles, [a plaintiff] must show that the course of

treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances." Id., citing

Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541, 543-44 (2d Cir. 1974). 

Here, plaintiff’s allegations indicate that his medication was no longer indicated. A

liberal construction of the allegations indicates that the decision to discontinue the medication

was a medical decision, and not a willing disregard of a serious risk to plaintiff’s health. There

are no facts alleged that support plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that he was subjected to

deliberate indifference regarding the course of his treatment. That he suffered withdrawals from

the discontinuance of his morphine does not, of itself, make such a decision unconstitutional. 

Assuming such a decision was negligent, it would not state a claim for relief. Negligence, even

gross negligence, is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9 Cir. 1990). th

Plaintiff does, however, state a claim for relief as to Dr. Friedman. Plaintiff has alleged

facts which, if true, indicate that he deliberately caused plaintiff pain because of plaintiff’s filing

of an inmate grievance. 

In the March 1, 2006, third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the same facts as in the

second amended complaint, albeit with greater factual specificity. Plaintiff does not, however,

correct the defects noted as to the remaining defendants. Plaintiff does, however, state a claim

for relief as to Defendant Dr. Friedman.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

Dr. FRIEDMAN

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a

Case 1:03-cv-05736-AWI-WMW Document 25 Filed 01/09/08 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

4

Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the

third amended complaint filed March 1, 2006.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to

the court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

c. two copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed March 1, 2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05736-AWI-WMW Document 25 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 4