Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M.D. Biter
Defendant
C.K. Chen
Defendant
L.A. Dileo
Defendant
T. Kubicki
Defendant
J. Lewis
Defendant
Ishmeal Patel
Defendant
Elvis Venable
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Elvis Venable is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff declined United States magistrate judge jurisdiction; therefore, this action was referred 

to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s second amended complaint, filed August 30, 2016. 

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 18, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff‟s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. On July 18, 

2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff‟s 

amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. On August 30, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed the instant second amended complaint.

///

ELVIS VENABLE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 17]

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff‟s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

While persons proceeding pro se are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed 

and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff‟s 

claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a 

defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 

572 F.3d at 969.

III.

ALLEGATIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The events at issue in the second amended complaint took place at Kern Valley State Prison 

(KVSP) and Plaintiff names Warden M.D. Biter, Primary Care Physician Ishmeal Patel, Deputy 

Director J. Lewis, Doctor L.A. Dileo, Doctor C.K. Chen, and T. Kubicki, as Defendants.

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

After Plaintiff‟s transfer to KVSP, his CDCR 7410 accommodation chronic was cancelled by 

Dr. Patel. Plaintiff filed an appeal to obtain the pain management appliance that was confiscated. The 

medical condition that led to the issuance of the accommodation chrono has not changed or improved, 

and the medical appliance was cancelled without explanation. 

Correctional health care services is responsible for maintaining the medical care, including 

pain management. Dr. Patel was negligent by cancelling Plaintiff‟s accommodation chrono for no 

specific reason. Plaintiff‟s orthopedic shoes were confiscated and he was forced to wear state issued 

shoes causing him severe pain. Plaintiff‟s wedge and cervical pillow and knee braces were also 

confiscated causing him “a great deal of pain.” 

J. Lewis, Dr. Dileo, and Dr. Chen were negligent for failing to correct the situation by way of 

Plaintiff‟s inmate appeal. 

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages as relief. 

IV.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners 

not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While 

conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the 

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) 

(quotation marks omitted). Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate 

shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 

731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner 

sustains while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation 

marks omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials 

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

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 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. 

The events described do not give rise to a claim against any Defendant for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Although Plaintiff contends that his medical chrono was rescinded upon his 

transfer to KVSP, Plaintiff acknowledges that his inmate appeal was partially granted at the first level 

of review and he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon. (ECF No. 17, Sec. Am. Compl. at 2.) 

Plaintiff‟s allegations do not support a claim that any Defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial 

risk of harm to Plaintiff‟s health or safety, and mere negligence does not suffice under the Eighth 

Amendment. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 

(9th Cir. 2005). In addition, Plaintiff‟s disagreement with a medical determination is not sufficient to 

give rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 

F.3d at 987 (A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 

professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 

indifference.”) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on other 

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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

grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to 

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

V.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff‟s second amended complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Plaintiff was previously given leave to amend to cure the deficiencies but he was unable 

to do so, and based on the nature of the deficiencies, further leave to amend is not warranted. Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 

1983; and

2. The Clerk‟s Office be directed to enter judgment.

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

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

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 

Court. 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 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 5