Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392-4/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

COLIN M. RANDOLPH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

B. NIX, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE

MEDICAL INDIFFERENCE CLAIM IN 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS AVERY AND 

AKANNO, and (2) DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT PHILPOD

(ECF No. 17)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

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

rights action filed on March 15, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.)

The Court has screened the second amended complaint and for the reasons set 

forth below, recommends that it be served on Defendants Akanno and Avery and that 

Defendant Philpod be dismissed from this action. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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. 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 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

2

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or 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).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990), quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method 

for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 667-68. Plaintiff’s factual allegations 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 2 of 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

3

are construed in light most favorable to Plaintiff. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

In February 2011, Plaintiff was transferred from California State Prison –

Sacramento (“CSPS”) to Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) where he remains. His 

initial KVSP housing assignment (upper bunk) failed to accommodate his vision and 

mobility impairments and failed to honor his CSPS Comprehensive Accommodation 

Chrono (“CSPS Chrono”) dated April 10, 2010 for a permanent lower bunk.

1

 

Plaintiff submitted a medical request for a lower bunk and was seen by 

Defendant Akanno, a medical doctor at KVSP. Plaintiff explained his condition and the 

CSPS Chrono to Akanno, including his physical difficulties and severe pain getting up 

and down from an upper bunk. Akanno prescribed Motrin, but refused to honor the 

CSPS Chrono. 

Plaintiff filed a grievance. He complained to Defendant Philpod, a correctional 

officer at KVSP, about the failure to honor his CSPS Chrono and about his problems

getting up and down from his upper bunk. He requested emergency relief. Philpod 

explained “there were no open lower beds but he’d do what he could.” ECF 17 at 6:25-

26. Philpod refused Plaintiff’s request to speak to Philpod’s supervisor, and failed to 

return a related Form 22 Plaintiff provided for signature.

On April 22, 2011, Plaintiff fell while attempting to get down from his upper bunk. 

He was transported to the hospital and received stitches for a head laceration. He was

returned to his cell, but passed-out while climbing into his bunk. He went back to the

hospital for tests. He returned to his cell.

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Avery, a medical doctor at 

KVSP. Plaintiff told Avery he was “in excruciating pain and that he couldn’t walk, stand 

or move his right hand and his vision was extremely blurry.” (ECF No. 17 at 9:10-13.) 

 

1 The CSPS Chrono for lower bunk is marked “permanent” yet provides for a “6 month” term. (ECF No. 17 

at 19.) 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 3 of 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

4

Avery prescribed pain medication which Plaintiff advised had not been effective in the 

past. Avery refused to order a lower tier and lower bunk, stating he would not do so 

without Plaintiff’s chart. 

On April 27, 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Akanno, who provided an 

accommodation order for a permanent lower bunk. Plaintiff immediately told Philpod

and demanded to be moved to a lower bunk. Plaintiff did not receive a lower bunk until 

June 21, 2011. 

Plaintiff claims Defendants aforementioned conduct violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights, causing him physical and mental pain. He seeks a declaration his 

rights have been violated, monetary damages, and appointment of counsel. 

IV. COGNIZABLE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST AKANNO AND 

AVERY

The facts alleged by Plaintiff are sufficient to suggest a deliberately indifferent 

response by Defendants Akanno and Avery to Plaintiff’s serious medical need for a 

lower bunk.

2

 

A. Medical Indifference

“[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 

(1976). This requires 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, quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 

974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff’s allegation of vision impairment (Keritoconus) and mobility impairments 

(gout and plantar piatus) requiring medication and causing extreme pain in certain

 

2

 Plaintiff claims that Defendants Akanno and Avery acted to “punish” him and were deliberately

indifferent to his “conditions of confinement”. However, since his claims arise from the provision of health 

care and allege no facts suggesting retaliatory action, they are analyzed as medical indifference.

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 4 of 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

5

circumstances (such as climbing into and out of an upper bunk) is sufficient to show a 

serious medical condition. See McGuckin, 947 F.2d at 1059–60 (“[T]he existence of an 

injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or 

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of 

indications that a prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment.”). 

Plaintiff’s alleges that: he told Akanno and Avery of the (nominally) permanent 

CSPS Chrono for a lower bunk and of the difficulties and pain he was having with the 

upper bunk; that these Defendants then deliberately refused to investigate, renew, 

modify, or terminate the CSPS Chrono and denied and delayed ordering a lower bunk

without medical justification; and that Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional harm as a 

result. This is sufficient to claim deliberate indifference. The facts as alleged must be 

taken as true at this stage of the proceedings and as such assert these Defendants 

were aware of a serious medical risk in housing Plaintiff in an upper bunk and knowingly 

failed to respond to the risk. Defendants did not demonstrate the exercise of medical 

judgment. Significantly, on the same facts, Defendant Dr. Akanno ultimately issued 

Plaintiff a permanent lower bunk order.

The facts alleged are sufficient on screening to suggest Akanno and Avery were 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need for a lower bunk. See e.g.,

Felix-Torres v. Graham, 687 F.Supp.2d. 38, 64 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (where there was in 

place a medical order that an inmate be assigned to a lower bunk, that order was known 

to the defendants, and the inmate was thereafter assigned to an upper bunk resulting in 

an injury to the inmate, the evidence suffices to raise a question of fact on the second 

prong of the claim.”).

Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed on his medical indifference claim against 

Defendants Akanno and Avery.

V. NO CLAIM STATED AGAINST DEFENDANT PHILPOD

The allegations are insufficient to show Philpod knew of and disregarded a 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 5 of 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

6

substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff and that Philpod denied, delayed and 

interfered with treatment of Plaintiff’s medical needs.

A. Conditions of Confinement

To maintain a claim for inhumane conditions of confinement, Plaintiff must show 

prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. E.g., Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150–51 (9th 

Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff claims he showed Philpod the CSPS Chrono and told him of his 

underlying medical condition and difficulties with the upper bunk. Philpod responded 

that no lower beds were available but that he “would do what he could”. This is not 

suggestive of deliberate indifference. Even assuming Philpod was aware of a serious 

risk of harm from the upper bunk, the facts do no show Philpod intentionally disregarded 

this risk. The reported lack of available lower bed space constitutes a legitimate

penological purpose in denying a lower bunk, not an intentional disregard of Plaintiff’s 

needs. Philpod’s statement that he “would do what he could” about finding Plaintiff lower 

bed space suggests a desire to respond to Plaintiff’s need, not indifference. 

Likewise, that there was a delay in Plaintiff receiving a lower bunk does not alone 

suggest Philpod was indifferent. But instead suggests at most inactionable negligence. 

See Felix-Torres, 687 F.Supp.2d. at 53 (negligently failing to assign a prisoner to a 

lower bunk is not sufficient to show subjective indifference to a serious medical need).

B. Medical Indifference

Applying the standard in section IV above, nothing in the second amended 

complaint suggests Philpod intentionally denied, delayed, or interfered with Plaintiff’s 

medical needs. On the contrary, it appears Philpod afforded Plaintiff ready access to 

medical staff for screening, evaluation and treatment.

C. Leave to Amend Denied

Plaintiff was advised in the prior screening orders of the deficiencies in his claims 

against Philpod. Plaintiff has failed to correct these deficiencies. It is reasonable to 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 6 of 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

7

conclude Plaintiff is unable to correct them and thus that further leave to amend would 

be futile and should be denied. 

VI. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint states a

cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim for damages against 

Defendants Akanno and Avery, but no other claim.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff should proceed on the second amended complaint Eighth

Amendment medical indifference claim seeking damages against 

Defendants Akanno and Avery;

2. All other claims asserted in the second amended complaint and Defendant

Philpod should be dismissed with prejudice;

3. Service should be initiated on the following Defendants:

AKANNO, Medical Doctor at Kern Valley State Prison; 

AVERY, Medical Doctor at Kern Valley State Prison; 

4. The Clerk of the Court should send Plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms, two

(2) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction 

sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed August 7, 2013;

5. Within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption of these findings and

recommendations, Plaintiff should complete and return to the Court the 

notice of submission of documents along with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

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

and

c. Three (3) copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed

August 7, 2013; and

6. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court should direct

the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant 

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 7 of 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

8

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Within fourteen 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 fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

12eob4

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 08/30/13 Page 8 of 8