Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00034-10/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND LEE GOINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIMACULANGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-0034 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 11, 2018, the court screened plaintiff’s amended 

complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court found that 

plaintiff could proceed on a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Dr.

Truong Bao Le “to the extent plaintiff alleges [Dr. Le was] at least deliberately indifferent to a 

jaw condition suffered by plaintiff by failing to provide plaintiff with treatment or a referral for 

treatment.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) Dr. Le has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

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

Case 2:18-cv-00034-TLN-CKD Document 79 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 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

2

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. 

When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Review is generally limited to the complaint. Cervantes v. City of San 

Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993). Of course, the court “draw[s] on its judicial experience 

and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).1

I. Facts Alleged

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows:

1. Dr. Le is a physician at San Joaquin General Hospital.

2. On June 27, 2016, after plaintiff had experienced problems with his jaw for about four 

days, plaintiff was transferred to San Joaquin General from California State Prison, Sacramento

(CDP-Sac.) for a broken jaw.2 After an x-ray confirmed plaintiff’s broken jaw, plaintiff was seen 

by Dr. Le. Dr. Le diagnosed a dislocated and fractured jaw, a contusion and an abscess. Dr. Le 

indicated plaintiff’s injuries were non-emergent and cleared plaintiff to return to CSP-Sac. 

3. Plaintiff asserts that during their June 27, 2016 visit, Dr. Le knew plaintiff was in pain. 

4. Plaintiff returned to San Joaquin General on July 1, 2016 for surgery on his jaw.

II. Legal Standard

Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 

violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 

(1976). A prison official is liable for such a violation only when the individual is deliberately 

 

1

 Facts identified by plaintiff in his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, but not his first 

amended complaint are not considered for purposes of the motion to dismiss. 

2

 Plaintiff does not indicate how he broke his jaw. 

Case 2:18-cv-00034-TLN-CKD Document 79 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 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

3

indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.

Deliberate indifference is established by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Jett v. 

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Also, the prison official must not only “be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but 

that person “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This 

“subjective approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 

839. A showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional 

violation. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-

106. A difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, 

nor does a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of 

medical treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 

1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, mere delay of medical treatment, “without more, is 

insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State 

Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). Where a prisoner alleges that delay of 

medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay caused 

“significant harm and that Defendants should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan, 

296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. Analysis

Dr. Le argues that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for delay or denial of medical care 

under the Eighth Amendment because plaintiff has not adequately alleged deliberate indifference. 

Dr. Le asserts that, at best, the allegations amount to a difference of opinion between plaintiff and

Dr. Le as to whether plaintiff’s jaw condition amounted to a medical emergency. Although the 

court construes plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, the court assumes that a finding of a medical 

emergency would have resulted in some form of immediate or near immediate corrective 

treatment as to plaintiff’s broken jaw. Plaintiff does not assert what treatment should have been 

immediately provided, but does state that he received jaw surgery on July 2, 2016. ECF No. 10 at 

10.

Case 2:18-cv-00034-TLN-CKD Document 79 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 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

4

After reviewing plaintiff’s first amended complaint and the briefing with respect to Dr.

Le’s motion to dismiss, the court agrees with Dr. Le that plaintiff does not state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff fails to point to facts 

indicating that Dr. Le’s not declaring the condition of plaintiff’s jaw as “emergent” on June 27, 

2016 amounts to deliberate indifference. As indicated above, plaintiff received surgery on his 

jaw within a matter of days from that visit and plaintiff fails to allege that delay in surgery caused 

him any significant harm which can be attributed to Dr. Le. Further, it is important to note that 

the facts identified by plaintiff in his amended complaint indicate that plaintiff was under almost 

constant medical care from staff at CSP-Sac. from June 27, 2016, when staff identified that 

plaintiff had a broken jaw and ordered that he be sent to San Joaquin General, until well after his 

surgery on July 2; plaintiff does not assert Dr. Le should have done anything other than declare 

plaintiff "emergent.” This being the case, the court concludes that Dr. Le was only responsible 

for determining whether plaintiff needed immediate corrective care on June 27, 2016 and not 

other aspects of plaintiff’s care such as prescriptions for medication or conditions of confinement 

at CSP-Sac.

In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that defendant Dr. Le’s motion to 

dismiss be granted and that plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Le be 

dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant Dr. Le’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 62) be granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s remaining claim against defendant Dr. Le arising under the Eighth 

Amendment be dismissed.

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

Case 2:18-cv-00034-TLN-CKD Document 79 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 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

5

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). 

Dated: January 8, 2020

1

goin0034.dis(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-00034-TLN-CKD Document 79 Filed 01/08/20 Page 5 of 5