Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01181/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01181-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe Anthony Gonzales
Plaintiff
J. Lewis
Defendant
D. Longcrier
Defendant
S. Shiesha
Defendant
H. Tate
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOE ANTHONY GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01181 AWI DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT ACTION GO FORWARD ON 

COGNIZABLE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 

CLAIM, AND THAT REMAINING CLAIM 

BE DISMISSED

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Joe Anthony Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on July 29, 2014. He names H. 

Tate, M.D., S. Shiesha, M.D., D. Longcrier and J. Lewis as Defendants.

A. SCREENING 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 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 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

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. 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 must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in 

Tehachapi, California, where the events at issue occurred.

By way of background, Plaintiff explains that throughout his incarceration, he has been given 

mild medication for various chronic conditions. He has had three reconstructive surgeries to repair 

an ACL tear in his right knee. The third and final surgery was performed in January 2012. He was 

subsequently issued a permanent medical exemption for a supportive knee brace, which he 

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 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

3

purchased with his own money. His treating sources at his prior place of incarceration also ordered 

physical therapy.

In July 2012, Plaintiff was exercising and felt a “pop” in his shoulder. He did not seek 

immediate medication attention because he hoped the pain would go away on its own.

In September 2012, Plaintiff was transferred from Ironwood State Prison to CCI. The pain in 

his shoulder had not subsided and he sought medical attention upon his arrival at CCI.

Dr. Lee became his treating physician. Between October 2012 and August 2013, Dr. Lee 

ordered x-rays, physical therapy, steroid shots and an MRI.

Dr. Schultz performed the MRI on Plaintiff’s right shoulder and discovered tendinosis of the 

supraspinatus with mild interstitial tearing of the distal fibers, a tear of the posterior labrum and 

moderate degenerative changes of the acromioclavicular joint.

At a follow-up visit, Dr. Lee referred Plaintiff to a specialist in Lancaster. The specialist 

reviewed Dr. Schultz’s report and explained that Plaintiff would require surgery. However, prior to 

surgery, the specialist ordered a second MRI with a dye injection. 

In October 2013,1Plaintiff went for a follow-up visit where he discovered that Dr. Lee had 

been “rotated out.” ECF No. 1, at 8. Defendant Tate was now his new primary care provider. At 

this visit, Defendant Tate cancelled his pain medication without reason, cancelled his physical 

therapy without reason and cancelled the second MRI without reason. In fact, Defendant Tate 

cancelled any and all treatment Plaintiff was scheduled to receive for his shoulder. Defendant Tate 

told Plaintiff that he was a prisoner, and that he didn’t need his shoulder or knee because he can’t 

work. He also told Plaintiff that his cellmate could dress him. Defendant Tate also told custody 

staff to take Plaintiff’s knee brace, with no reason given. When Plaintiff told him that his knee 

would hurt without it, Defendant Tate replied, “So what, you can live with it. You’re not going to 

die.” ECF No. 1, at 8.

On October 22, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a grievance to Defendant Dr. Shiesha about his 

medical treatment and Defendant Tate. Defendant Shiesha forwarded the grievance to Defendant 

 

1

Plaintiff’s complaint states the date as October 2014, though this is an error.

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Tate. The appeal was ultimately granted in part because Plaintiff had seen a specialist in July 2013, 

and because Defendant Shiesha ordered Tylenol for Plaintiff’s pain. 

On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff appealed to Chief Support Executive Defendant Longcrier. 

Defendant Longcrier denied the appeal based on Defendant Tate’s review of Plaintiff’s complaint 

and his health history. 

On January 5, 2014, Plaintiff appealed to Deputy Director Defendant Lewis. Defendant 

Lewis denied Plaintiff’s grievance for the same reasons as Defendants Shiesha and Longcrier. He 

contends that Defendant Lewis used the same “misleading statements of inaccurate information, 

without independently reviewing Plaintiff’s medical file, or interviewing Plaintiff themselves.” ECF 

No. 1, at 9. Rather, Defendants’ assessments were based solely on Defendant Tate’s report, which 

was the subject of the grievance. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has continued to ask for medical treatment because he is in 

continuous and intensifying pain. He states that he has lost mobility in his injured knee and 

shoulder. 

Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Eighth Amendment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat 

[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful 

act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the 

indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind 

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 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

5

is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d 

at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Tate cancelled his shoulder treatment and took 

his knee brace are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against him. 

Plaintiff’s allegations also state a claim against Defendants Shiesha, Longcrier and Lewis in 

their roles in reviewing Plaintiff’s medical appeals. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 

2006).

2

2. Fourteenth Amendment

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that 

one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005). 

Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he 

cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his 

appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Plaintiff believes that the manner in which his appeals were handled, i.e., by involving 

Defendant Tate in the decision-making process, denied him “meaningful review.” ECF No. 1, at 10. 

However, as explained above, Plaintiff does not have a due process right to have his grievances 

handled or decided in a particular manner. He therefore fails to state a due process claim against any 

Defendant. This cannot be cured by amendment.

C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action go 

forward against Defendants Tate, Shiesha, Longcrier and Lewis for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. The Court further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim be 

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 

 

2

Plaintiff will be instructed on service by separate order.

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 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

6

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: February 11, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01181-AWI-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/12/15 Page 6 of 6