Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110802_0010708.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-05 12:32:59
Document Index: 716678972

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

| Kenneth Pearson v. James A. Yates
Kenneth Pearson v. James A. Yates
KENNETH PEARSON,PLAINTIFF,v.JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff Kenneth Pearson ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on January 13, 2011.
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: warden James A. Yates; chief medical officer Felix Ibginosa; physician's assistant Randolph Wilson, registered nurse M. Griffith, health care appeals coordinators Nesbitt and Martinez, and John Doe 1, a medical doctor, and 2 through 5, primary care office assistants.
Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff was previously diagnosed with cocci infection stemming from valley fever. Plaintiff suffered numerous complications from the cocci infection, including pneumonia and bronchitis, from November 2009 to March 2010.
Plaintiff started to suffer pain and swelling in his lower back on March 5, 2010. Plaintiff met with Defendant Wilson on March 15, 2010. Plaintiff complained of his back pain, which had become severe and disabling, as well as swelling. Defendant Wilson did not diagnose the pain or swelling. Defendant Wilson noted occasional back pain and promised to refer him to Correctional Treatment Center (CTC), and prescribe pain medication. None was done.
On March 26, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a Health Care Services Request Form CDC 7362, complaining of his severe pain. On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a second CDC 7362, complaining that the severe pain inhibited his ability to eat or walk. Plaintiff had been referred for x-rays, but had yet to be seen by anyone. Defendant Griffith received the first CDC 7362, and responded to the second CDC 7362 by scheduling Plaintiff for the MD line on March 30, 2010. Plaintiff was later seen by Defendants Wilson and Doe 1, who ordered an x-ray, prescribed capsaicin, a topical cream for arthritis, and methcarbamol, a sedative for musculoskeletal pain. Plaintiff received no pain relief.
Plaintiff filed a CDC 602 inmate appeal on April 5, 2010, and a third CDC 7362 on April 8, 2010. On April 12, 2010, Defendant Griffith saw Plaintiff, noted a 15 by 10 centimeter growth near Plaintiff's spinal column, and scheduled an urgent MD line appointment within 24 hours. The appointment did not occur. On April 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second CDC 602, complaining of never receiving his MD line appointment. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Griffith who noted a 4 by 5 inch swollen area on his back, and sharp pain. Plaintiff was scheduled for MD line appointment again, but did not receive it.
On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a third CDC 602 inmate appeal and another CDC 7362 form. Plaintiff also wrote letters to the Prison Law Office and to Clark Kelso. On April 26, 2010, the Prison Law Office contacted a deputy attorney general. Plaintiff was seen on April 29, 2010, by Defendant Wilson, who examined Plaintiff, prescribed Tylenol 3 for the pain, and transferred Plaintiff to Mercy medical center. Plaintiff was treated for over two and a half months for disseminated cocci and related abscess.
Plaintiff contends a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff requests as relief compensatory and punitive damages, full medical coverage for life, and fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Wilson and Doe 1 showed deliberate indifference by failing to adequately examine Plaintiff. Pl.'s Compl. 10.*fn1 Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff's claims do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff's claims amount at most to negligence. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ("Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner."); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that isolated occurrences of neglect do not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Wilson and Doe 1 were deliberately indifferent f or failing to provide any pain medication between March 15 to March 30, and April 10 to April 29, and for failing to provide adequate pain medication between March 30 and April 9. Pl.'s Compl.
11. Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim. Based on Plaintiff's allegations, Plaintiff was referred for an x-ray, and pain medication would be prescribed. Plaintiff then received pain medication. Though the pain medication was allegedly inadequate, Plaintiff's allegations do not demonstrate that Defendants Wilson and Doe 1 were deliberately indifferent. Again, Plaintiff's claims amount at most to negligence.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Griffith and Does 2 through 5, demonstrated deliberate indifference by failing to schedule Plaintiff for the MD line on four separate occasions. Pl.'s Compl. 11. Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff's claims indicate that Defendant Griffith did schedule Plaintiff to be seen by a medical doctor within twenty-four hours. Defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844-45/ Plaintiff's pleadings do not demonstrate that Defendant Griffith disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff's health.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Nesbitt and Martinez were deliberately indifferent because they failed to implement and enforce an inmate medical appeals procedure that would have led to Plaintiff being seen in a timely manner. Pl.'s Compl. 11-12. Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim. Defendants Nesbitt and Martinez interacted with Plaintiff through the administrative grievance process. There are no other allegations that demonstrate these Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Igbinosa and Yates were deliberately indifferen by failing to provide adequate medical care, supervise or train their personnel, or correcting alleged systemic deficiencies in the medical services at PVSP. Pl.'s Compl. 12-13. Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim. The term "supervisory liability," loosely and commonly used by both courts and litigants alike, is a misnomer. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. "Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior." Id. at 1948. Rather, each government official, regardless of his or her title, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that either Defendants Igbinosa or Yates personally participated in the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights, knew of constitutional violations and failed to act, or promulgated or implemented a policy that is the moving force of a constitutional violation.
3. Plaintiff should not add new and unrelated claims to his amended complaint and any attempt to do so may result in the amended complaint being stricken; and