Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110509_0006710.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 06:11:03
Document Index: 464162919

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', 'art0942']

| Patrick A. Martinez v. Warden Tim Virga
PATRICK A. MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF,v.WARDEN TIM VIRGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
In the statement of claim portion of the complaint, plaintiff lists the named defendants and their roles in the prison system. In the relief section, plaintiff asks the court to order the Directors of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Warden, the Superintendents, physicians and nurses at California State Prison - Sacramento ("CSPSAC"), to stop denying plaintiff seizure medication Gabapentin as prescribed, "600 mg x 3" two times per day as needed for grand mal seizure disorder or pay damages. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff attaches documents he alleges exhausts his claims.
Plaintiff names seven people as defendants in this action. However, plaintiff has failed to include specific charging allegations for each defendant. Put another way, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how each named defendant is responsible for the alleged discontinuation of plaintiff's prescription. The failure to include such charging allegations makes it difficult for the court to determine whether plaintiff is challenging incidents that occurred at CSP-SAC, or at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP") in Soledad, as alleged in the administrative appeals appended to the complaint. In any event, the complaint, as presently pled, fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim against any of the named defendants because plaintiff has failed to show the named defendant was responsible for prescribing plaintiff Gabapentin or that the named defendant was responsible for discontinuing the Gabapentin prescription for plaintiff.
Plaintiff also lists "unknown physician 4-5-11" and "unknowns" as defendants. It appears plaintiff seeks to name Doe defendants whose names are not presently known to plaintiff. Plaintiff is advised that the use of Doe defendants is not favored in the Ninth Circuit.
See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) ("As a general rule, the use of 'John Doe' to identify a defendant is not favored."). However, where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify them. Id. Failure to afford the plaintiff such an opportunity is error. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissing a complaint because plaintiff is unaware of Doe's identity at the time the complaint is filed is error). Accordingly, plaintiff should not name Doe defendants as defendants in any amended complaint, but if plaintiff learns the Doe defendants' identities through discovery, he may move to file an amended complaint to add them as named defendants. See Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff must also allege facts that defendant responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference may be shown "when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care." Hutchinson v. U.S., 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). Where the claim is based on a delay in treatment, "a prisoner can make 'no claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the denial was harmful.'" McGuckin at 1060 (quoting Shapley v. Nevada Board of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)(per curiam)). The harm caused by the delay need not, however, be "substantial." McGuckin at 1060 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1990); also citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-10).
In the instant complaint, the Director's Level Decision provided by plaintiff states that plaintiff was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison on May 7, 2008, and Gabapentin, 900 mg, two times each day, was prescribed for plaintiff on May 8, 2008, but because Gabapentin is a non-formulary drug requiring approval, the Gabapentin was not dispensed to plaintiff until June 3, 2008. (Dkt. No. 1 at 11.) It is unclear from plaintiff's complaint whether he is seeking damages for the delay in receiving the Gabapentin once he was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, or whether he is claiming that someone has discontinued his prescription to Gabapentin since his transfer to CSP-SAC. In addition, the prescription level referred to in the administrative appeal appears to differ from the prescription level sought in plaintiff's complaint. Moreover, a physician at CSP-SAC has confirmed that plaintiff is presently prescribed Carbamazepine and Trileptal for plaintiff's seizure disorder. (Dkt. No. 14-1 at 3.) Dr. Moghaddam states that Gabapentin is in the same anticonvulsant group as Trileptal, but Trileptal is better suited for plaintiff's treatment. (Dkt. No. 14-1 at 4.) Plaintiff's psychiatrist concurs with this treatment regimen. (Id.) Plaintiff is advised that mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to appropriate medical care do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
Finally, it is unclear that plaintiff has exhausted his claims as to defendants employed at CSP-SAC or as to allegations concerning incidents that occurred at CSP-SAC. The appeals provided by plaintiff demonstrate he exhausted his claims as to incidents occurring at SVSP in Soledad. Claims arising from incidents in Soledad are more properly raised in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. If plaintiff intends to pursue claims concerning his incarceration at SVSP, he should amend his complaint and name the appropriate defendants at SVSP, and this court will transfer the action to the Northern District. If plaintiff is raising claims concerning his incarceration at CSP-SAC, plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative remedies at CSP-SAC. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). In other words, plaintiff must exhaust his administrative appeals as to incidents at CSP-SAC before filing in federal court.
Finally, on April 19, 2011, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Clarification to Defendants Name(s) Moggadad." (Dkt. No. 6.) This filing does not make clear whether plaintiff is attempting to correct the name of a defendant already named, or whether plaintiff is attempting to add this person as a defendant, or substitute this person in as a defendant in place of "unknown physician 4-5-11" or one of the "unknowns." Plaintiff is advised that he cannot correct a defendant's name or add a defendant simply by filing such a document. Plaintiff must file a motion to substitute the person's name or, if defendants have not yet appeared in the action, file an amended complaint with the correction contained therein. Because plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiff may make the appropriate correction in the amended complaint. Therefore, plaintiff's April 19, 2011 filing will be placed in the court file and disregarded.
5. Plaintiff's April 19, 2011 filing (dkt. no. 6) is disregarded.
mart0942.14
PATRICK A. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN TIM VIRGA, et al., NOTICE OF AMENDMENT Defendants.
No. 2:11-cv-0942 KJN P
Amended Complaint DATED: Plaintiff