Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02247/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02247-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

FILED 

FEB 19 2016 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

8Y EPUTY 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 

10 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 RAUL ARELLANO, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

v. 

DR. K. DEAN; S. PASHA; M.D. S. 

ROBERTS; M. GLYNN; J. LEWIS; 

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

HEALTH CARE SERVICES, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

20 Plaintiff Raul Arellano, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

21 Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 

22 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No.1). Plaintiff did not prepay the civil 

23 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has 

24 filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

25 (Doc. No.2). 

26 I. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP 

27 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe 

28 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 

3: J5-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
1 U.S.c. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire 

2 fee only ifhe is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 

3 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the plaintiff is a 

4 prisoner and he is granted leave to proceed IFP, he remains obligated to pay the full 

5 entire fee in "increments," Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), 

6 regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(l) & 

7 (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 

8 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

9 ("PLRA"), prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a "certified copy of the 

10 trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the ... six-month period 

11 immediately preceding the filing ofthe complaint." 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. 

12 King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, 

13 the Court assesses an initial payment of20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the 

14 account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the 

15 past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. 

16 § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner then 

17 collects subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any 

18 month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forwards those payments to the 

19 Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

20 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of his trust 

21 account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Civil Local Rule 3.2. The 

22 Court has reviewed Plaintiffs trust account activity which shows he has a current balance 

23 of $0.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that "[i]n no event shall a prisoner be 

24 prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment 

25 for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay [an] initial 

26 partial filing fee."); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a 

27 "safety-valve" preventing dismissal of a prisoner's IFP case based solely on a "failure to 

28 pay ... due to the lack of funds available."). 

2 

3: \S-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
1 Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP and assesses no 

2 initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(I). However, the entire $350 balance of 

3 the filing fee owed must be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to 

4 the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(I). 

5 II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) 

6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provided him inadequate medical care in violation 

7 of the Eighth Amendment. 

8 A. Standard of Review 

9 Notwithstanding Plaintiff s IFP status or the payment of any filing fees, the PLRA 

10 also requires the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by 

11 those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, 

12 sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

13 conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as 

14 practicable after docketing." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b). Under these statutes, 

15 the Court must sua sponte dismiss any complaint, or any portion of a complaint, which is 

16 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 

17 immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see also Lopezv. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

18 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 

19 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing § 1915A(b)). 

20 All complaints must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

21 the pleader is entitled to relief" Fed. R Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

22 not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals ofthe elements of a cause of action, supported by 

23 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

24 (citing Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "Determining whether a 

25 complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires 

26 the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. The 

27 "mere possibility of misconduct" falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see 

28 also Moss v. Us. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

3 

3: JS·cv·02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
1 "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

2 veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." 

3 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnickv. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) 

4 ("[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

5 allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to 

6 the plaintiff."); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)(noting that 

7 section 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."). 

8 However, while the court "ha[ s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, 

9 particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

10 petitioner the benefit of any doubt," Hebbe V. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 

11 2010)(citing Bretz V. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.l (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not 

12 "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled." Ivey V. Bd. of Regents 

13 of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). "Vague and conclusory 

14 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations" are simply not "sufficient to 

15 withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. 

16 B. Application 

17 "Section 1983 creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting 

18 under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights." Devereaux V. 

19 Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070,1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1983 "is not itself a source of 

20 substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

21 conferred." Graham V. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (internal quotation marks 

22 and citations omitted). "To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) 

23 deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) 

24 that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Tsao V. 

25 Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012). 

26 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible Eighth Amendment 

27 claim against any of the named Defendants. Only "deliberate indifference to serious 

28 medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... 

4 

3:15-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
1 proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 104 (1976) 

2 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "A determination of 'deliberate 

3 indifference' involves an examination of two elements: (1) the seriousness of the 

4 prisoner's medical need and (2) the nature of the defendant's response to that need." 

5 McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,1059 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

6 104), overruled on other grounds by WMXTechs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 

7 1997) (en bane). 

8 First, "[b]ecause society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access 

9 to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment 

10 violation only ifthose needs are 'serious.'" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,9 (1992) 

11 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-104). "A 'serious' medical need exists ifthe failure to 

12 treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the 'unnecessary 

13 and wanton infliction of pain. '" McGuckin, 974 F .2d at 1059. "The existence of an 

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

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

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

17 indications that a prisoner has a 'serious' need for medical treatment." Id. at 1060 (citing 

18 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 

19 F.2d 198,200-01 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

20 Plaintiff alleges to suffer from a seizure disorder, as well as nerve damage from an 

21 "assault [he] suffered in November 2010." (See Compi. at 8.) The Court finds these 

22 allegations sufficient to plead an objectively serious medical need. McGuckin, 914 F.2d 

23 at 1059. 

24 However, even assuming Plaintiffs medical needs are sufficiently serious, his 

25 Complaint still fails to include sufficient "factual content" to show that any Defendant 

26 acted with "deliberate indifference" to his needs. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that 

27 various medical personnel at RJD have prescribed medication for his condition which he 

28 

5 

3:15-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
1 claims is not as helpful as a medication he was previously prescribed. 1 Plaintiff also 

2 claims that he has been wrongfully denied "therapeutic shoe," which he alleges is 

3 required for his medical condition.2 Plaintiff then filed a number of grievances and seeks 

4 to hold liable the Defendants who responded to these grievances. In these grievances, 

5 Defendants Roberts, Lewis, and Glynn agreed with the course of treatment that Plaintiff 

6 was receiving and declined to direct that Plaintiff be prescribed the medication of his 

7 choice. 

8 While Plaintiff concludes Defendants acted with deliberate indifference by failing 

9 to prescribe the medication he believed was appropriate, his Complaint lacks the "further 

10 factual enhancement" which demonstrates any Defendant's "purposeful act or failure to 

11 respond to [his] pain or possible medical need," and any "harm caused by [this] 

12 indifference." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557); Wilhelm v. 

13 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). This is 

14 because to be deliberately indifferent, Defendants' acts or omissions must involve more 

15 than an ordinary lack of due care. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978,985 (9th Cir. 2012) 

16 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. "A difference of 

17 opinion between a physician and the prisoner-or between medical professiona1s18 concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference." 

19 Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); 

20 Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23. Instead, Plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to "show that 

21 

22 

23 

1 Plaintiff has made almost identical claims, with different dates and individuals, in at least four other 

actions. A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

24 judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue. '" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 

F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 

2002». The Court therefore takes notice ofthe following cases: Arellano v. Officer Hodge, et al., S.D. 

Cal. Civil Case No. 3: 14-cv-00590-JLS-JLB; Arellano v. Sedighi, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15-

cv-02059-AJB-BGS; Arellano v. Milton, et a!., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-02069-JAH-NLS; 

25 

26 

27 Arellano v. Self, et al., S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:15-cv-02300-AJB-JMA. 

28 2 Plaintiff makes the identical claim in Arellano v. Officer Hodge, et al., S.D. Cal Civil Case No. 3:14-

cv-00590-JLS-JLB. 

6 

3: lS-cv-0224 7 -BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
1 the course of treatment the doctor[] chose was medically unacceptable under the 

2 circumstances and that the defendant[] chose this course in conscious disregard of an 

3 excessive risk to [his] health." Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citation and internal quotations 

4 omitted). 

5 Plaintiffs Complaint, however, contains no facts sufficient to show that any of his 

6 doctors or other medical officials acted with deliberate indifference to his plight by 

7 "knowing of and disregarding an[y] excessive risk to his health and safety." Farmer v. 

8 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs 

9 Complaint fails to state an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against any 

10 named Defendant, and that therefore, it is subject to sua sponte dismissal in its entirety 

11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(I). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 

12 1126-27; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1004. 

13 Because Plaintiff is proceed~ng without counsel, however, and the Court has now 

14 provided him "notice of the deficiencies in his complaint," it will also grant Plaintiff an 

15 opportunity to amend it. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 

16 Ferdikv. Bonzeiet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

17 III. Conclusion and Orders 

18 Good cause appearing, the Court: 

19 1. GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP. 

20 2. DIRECTS the Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from 

21 Plaintiffs prison trust account the $350 filing fee owed in this case by garnishing 

22 monthly payments from his account in an amount equal to twenty percent of the 

23 preceding month's income and forwarding those payments to the Clerk of the Court each 

24 time the amount in the account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL 

25 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 

26 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 

27 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this Order on Scott 

28 Kernan, Secretary, CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. 

7 

3: J5-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Judge 

8 

3: JS-cv-02247-BEN-JLB 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-RBM-JLB Document 3 Filed 02/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8