Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2017cv05297/684163/20
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 05:56:02
Document Index: 793260399

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 945', 'art: 17', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California California Central District Court Albert John Hamilton Jr v. Jurban et al Filing 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERT JOHN HAMILTON JR., 12 Case No. CV 17-5297 ODW (SS) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. 13 DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED J. URBAN, et al., 14 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendants. 15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 20 On July 18, 2017, Plaintiff Albert John Hamilton, Jr., a 21 California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 22 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Dkt. No. 1), which the 23 Court dismissed with leave to amend due to defects in pleading.1 24 (Dkt. No. 7). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended 25 Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 10). 26 27 28 Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval of the District Judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 1 1 Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial 2 screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks 3 redress 4 § 1915A(a). 5 of it, before service of process if it concludes that the complaint 6 (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a 8 defendant who is immune from such relief. from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. The court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 9 10 The facts underlying the Complaint and the FAC are largely 11 the same. Plaintiff once again complains that he was wrongfully 12 given a TB skin test by a prison nurse and that the response to 13 his administrative appeal challenging the propriety of that test 14 contained 15 Plaintiff will be able to state a constitutional claim based on 16 these facts, and indeed, the FAC repeats nearly all of the material 17 defects 18 Nonetheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity 19 to attempt to state a claim. 20 future amended pleading does not cure the defects that the Court 21 has now twice identified in the original Complaint and the FAC, 22 the Court may conclude that further attempts at amendment would be 23 futile and recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice 24 for failure to state a claim. 25 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would 26 be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting 27 further amendment.”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 28 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district a that factual inaccuracy. required dismissal The of Court the is doubtful original that Complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that if any See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 2 1 court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad 2 where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”) (internal 3 quotation marks omitted); Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 347 (9th 4 Cir. 1980) (same). 5 FAC is DISMISSED, with leave to amend. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the 6 7 II. 8 ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT2 9 10 Plaintiff sues four employees of the California Men’s Colony 11 State Prison 12 (1) nurse 13 (3) M. Morrisroe; 14 (collectively “Defendants”). J. (“CMC”) Urban; in their supervising and (4) Chief individual capacities nurses M. Support (2) only: Trujillo Executive M. and Wallace (FAC at 3-4). 15 16 Plaintiff alleges that he has previously tested positive for 17 tuberculosis. 18 classified 19 Rehabilitation 20 “significant reaction” to a “prior exposure” to TB. 21 7). by (Id. at 4). the As a result, since 1987 he has been California (“CDCR”) as Department “Code 32,” of meaning Corrections that he and had a (Id. at 4, Although California “mandates TB testing of inmates on an 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pro se pleadings are “to be liberally construed” and are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by a lawyer. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Some of the terms used in the FAC are not self explanatory, but are clarified by the attachments to the FAC or by reference to case law. The Court will cite to the FAC and its attached exhibits by the CM/ECF number at the top of each page as docketed on the Court’s system. 2 3 1 annual basis,” (id. at 71), Code 32 prisoners are not given PPD 2 (i.e., skin) tests.3 (Id. at 7). 3 4 Urban refused to review medical records showing that Plaintiff 5 was classified as “Code 32” before “inject[ing] [him] with a TB- 6 skin test” on May 8, 2015. 7 any specific injury from the “illegal injection,” but states that 8 “Plaintiff is not a doctor so how would Plaintiff know what his 9 medical Problem is without seeing a[n] outside doctor?” (Id. at 5). The FAC does not allege (Id. at 10 5, 8). 11 the Plaintiff significant injury because she violated the CDCR-HC- 12 TB DOM #54055.1 (TB Alert System) . . . .” 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 However, the FAC alleges that Urban “may of [sic] caused (Id. at 9). The FAC “The current test for detecting latent tuberculosis infection is the Purified Protein Derivative Test, or PPD (‘PPD’ or ‘skin test’).” Selah v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 42, 46 (N.D. N.Y. 2003) (internal citations and footnote omitted). “The PPD test involves injecting a precise amount of purified protein derivative of tuberculin under the skin on the patient’s forearm.” Metheney v. Anderson, 953 F. Supp. 854, 856 (N.D. Ohio 1996). “Tuberculin is a mix of purified proteins produced from dead TB bacteria[,] which means the administration of a TB skin test will not infect an individual with TB or any other disease or virus.” Richburg v. Daniels, 2015 WL 5008274, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 20, 2015). 3 “If an individual has a reaction to the injection that includes a thickening of the skin with a measurable induration, the individual has likely been infected with latent tuberculosis.” Selah, 255 F. Supp. 2d at 46. “Once an individual is infected, he will likely carry the bacteria forever. He may, however, show no symptoms of the disease for some length of time; such an individual is said to have ‘latent’ tuberculosis, which is not contagious under normal circumstances.” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 471-72 (2d Cir. 1996). “However, a positive PPD test does not constitute a diagnosis of TB. TB is diagnosed by chest x-ray. A positive PPD test with a negative chest x-ray shows only that a person has been exposed to TB. The person does not have TB and cannot transmit TB.” McNeal v. United States, 979 F. Supp. 431, 432 n.3 (N.D. W.Va. 1997). 4 1 further alleges that Urban is “in violation of causing the 2 Plaintiff over the time un-necesser [sic] Paine and maybe dread, 3 because of her medical negligence . . . .” (Id. at 10). 4 5 On June 25, 2015, Trujillo “filed” a false report regarding 6 the incident, which Morrisroe and Wallace also signed. (Id.). The 7 report was false because it stated that Plaintiff “took a TB test 8 at (MJC) [Men’s Central Jail] on 8/11/14,” even though other 9 records show that Plaintiff was at Wasco State Prison on that date. 10 (Id.). Trujillo, Morrisroe and Wallace signed the report to cover 11 up May 12 administered. the 8, 2015 “illegal (TB) skin test” that Urban had (Id. at 3-4). 13 14 The FAC does not clearly articulate the legal basis for 15 Plaintiff’s claims. However, construing the FAC liberally, 16 Plaintiff appears to contend that Urban is liable for medical 17 malpractice and deliberate indifference to his serious medical 18 needs. (See id. at 3, 10). Plaintiff further states that Trujillo, 19 Morrisroe and Wallace are “all guilty of falsifying a public 20 document . . . [and] offering a forged document.” 21 Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in monetary damages from each Defendant. 22 (Id. at 12). (Id. at 11). 23 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION 26 27 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court dismisses the FAC due to defects in pleading. A pro se litigant in a civil rights 5 1 case, however, must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 2 unless 3 complaint cannot be cured by amendment.” 4 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation 5 marks omitted). 6 more opportunity to state a claim, and dismisses the FAC with leave 7 to amend. “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff one 8 9 A. 10 The FAC Fails To State Claims For Negligence And Medical Malpractice 11 12 Plaintiff alleges that Urban is liable (FAC at 10). for “medical 13 malpractice along with negligence.”4 However, the 14 FAC does not satisfy the procedural requirements for alleging state 15 law tort claims (such as negligence or medical malpractice) against 16 government actors. 17 18 As the Court previously explained, pursuant to the California 19 Government Claims Act (“CGCA”),5 a plaintiff may not bring an action 20 for damages against a public employee or entity unless he first 21 presents a written claim to the local governmental entity within 22 six months of the accrual of the incident. See Mabe v. San 23 Medical malpractice is “a species of professional negligence.” Martinez-Serrano v. Quality Health Servs. Of Puerto Rico, Inc., 568 F.3d 278, 285 (1st Cir. 2009). 4 24 25 26 27 28 The short title “Government Claims Act” has been used interchangeably in California cases with the title “Tort Claims Act” to refer to the statutory scheme for presenting claims for money damages against governmental entities. See City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (2007). 5 6 1 Bernadino County, Dept. of Public Social Services, 237 F.3d 1101, 2 1111 3 Furthermore, a plaintiff must affirmatively allege compliance with 4 the 5 compliance should be excused. 6 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 administrative remedy [under the CGCA] is a jurisdictional, not a 8 procedural, defect.” 9 App. 3d 878, 890 (1985); see also Cornejo v. Lightbourne, 220 Cal. 10 App. 4th 932, 938 (2013) (“Ordinarily, filing a claim with a public 11 entity pursuant to the Claims Act is a jurisdictional element of 12 any cause of action for damages against the public entity . . .”). (9th CGCA’s Cir. 2001); claims see also presentation Cal. Gov’t requirement, Code or § 945.4.6 explain why Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, “The failure to exhaust an Miller v. United Airlines, Inc., 174 Cal. 13 14 To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert causes 15 of action for negligence or medical malpractice, the claims fail 16 because the FAC does not allege that Plaintiff satisfied the CGCA 17 claims presentation requirement before filing suit. 18 the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend. 19 cautioned that he should not assert a state law tort claim unless 20 he can either show that he presented his claim to the appropriate 21 agency prior to filing suit or explain why exhaustion should be 22 excused under the particular circumstances of this case. 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 27 28 Accordingly, Plaintiff is once again The claim presentation requirement under the CGCA is separate from, and is not satisfied by, internal prison grievance processes. See Hendon v. Ramsey, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1069–70 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 6 7 1 2 B. The FAC Fails To State A Claim For Deliberate Indifference To Serious Medical Needs 3 4 The FAC states that the administration of “the illegal TB- 5 injection” violated the “Civil Rights Act.” 6 appears 7 indifference to serious medical needs against Urban. 8 Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim is defective. to be attempting to state a (FAC at 8). claim for Plaintiff deliberate However, 9 10 As the Court previously explained, to state an Eighth 11 Amendment claim based on unconstitutional medical care, a prisoner 12 must show that the defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to his 13 “serious medical needs.” 14 Cir. 2006). 15 must demonstrate that “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition 16 could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and 17 wanton infliction of pain.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th To establish a “serious medical need,” the prisoner Id. (citation omitted). 18 19 To establish the defendant’s “deliberate indifference” to a 20 serious medical need, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(a) a 21 purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or 22 possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” 23 (Id.). 24 deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or 25 it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide 26 medical care.” 27 been subjectively aware of a serious risk of harm and must have 28 consciously disregarded that risk. Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials (Id.) (citations omitted). 8 The defendant must have 1 Here, Plaintiff alleges that because he has tested positive 2 for TB since 1987, Urban should not have administered a PPD skin 3 test. 4 medical risk in administering a TB skin test to a patient who 5 previously had a positive reaction to the test, and that Urban 6 deliberately refused to review Plaintiff’s medical records before 7 administering the test despite Plaintiff’s objections, the FAC does 8 not state a claim for deliberate indifference because Plaintiff 9 has not shown that he suffered any harm from the test. Even assuming, without deciding, that there may be some Plaintiff 10 alleges that the skin test “could have caused [him] un-necessary 11 pain or dread.” 12 does not allege that he actually suffered any physical harm as a 13 result of the test, which he claims “only a[n] outside doctor can 14 tell.” (FAC at 11) (emphasis added). However, Plaintiff (Id. at 8) 15 16 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides in relevant part: 17 18 No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner 19 confined 20 facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while 21 in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” in a jail, prison or other correctional 22 23 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The Ninth Circuit has determined that section 24 1997e(e)’s “physical injury” requirement demands a showing of a 25 “physical injury that need not be significant but must be more than 26 de minimis” before a prisoner may recover damages for emotional 27 injuries. 28 (claim for “mental and emotional injury” due to prison overcrowding Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002) 9 1 barred where the only physical injuries alleged were a canker sore 2 and back and leg pain from sleeping on benches and the floor); see 3 also Wood v. Idaho Dept. of Corr., 391 F. Supp. 2d 852, 867 (D. 4 Id. 2005) (deliberate indifference claim for “worry and distress” 5 due to delay of scheduled hepatitis vaccinations barred where 6 prisoner did not contract hepatitis during the delay); Glosson v. 7 Morales, 469 F. Supp. 2d 827, 830 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (prisoner’s 8 excessive force claim for “physical and mental anguish” barred 9 where 10 the physical injuries suffered were minor abrasions, scratches and bumps). 11 12 The FAC fails to state facts establishing that the harm 13 Plaintiff suffered was more than simple anxiety. 14 unsupported speculation that he might have suffered some other harm 15 that only an outside doctor could diagnose is insufficient to 16 support an Eighth Amendment claim. 17 WL 347194, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2009) (prisoner’s contention 18 following exposure to contaminant that cursory medical exam was 19 insufficient to detect latent injuries that could manifest in the 20 future did not allege non-speculative harm required for deliberate 21 indifference claim); Maciel v. California Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 22 2016 WL 6988640, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2016) (transfer of 23 prisoner to area where valley fever was endemic did not state 24 deliberate indifference claim where prisoner’s positive skin test 25 only indicated exposure to the fungus and the complaint did not 26 allege 27 Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend. that prisoner actually 28 10 Plaintiff’s See Rodriguez v. Evans, 2009 contracted the disease). 1 C. The FAC Fails To State A Claim Against Trujillo, Morrisroe 2 And Wallace 3 4 Plaintiff alleges that Trujillo, Morrisroe and Wallace are 5 liable for “falsifying a public document,” i.e., their response to 6 his second-level administrative appeal,7 by stating that he “took 7 a TB test at (MCJ) on 8/11/2014,” even though he was at Wasco State 8 Prison on that date. 9 Defendants were mistaken as to where -- or even whether -- Plaintiff a prior (FAC at 10). TB test, Even assuming that these three 10 received Plaintiff has not identified what 11 constitutional right, if any, was violated or alleged facts showing 12 that he was harmed in any way by the error. 13 14 The simple denial of an administrative grievance, without 15 more, is insufficient to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1983. 17 1999). 18 his 19 defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional 20 conduct is ‘the denial of administrative grievances or the failure See Shehee v. Luttrell, 1999 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. A plaintiff “cannot state a constitutional claim based on dissatisfaction with the grievance process. Where the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff identifies the allegedly “false report” as a “CDCR-HCappeal document,” (FAC at 12), and attaches as an exhibit to the FAC a copy of the appeal response signed by Defendants. (Id. at 71-72). The Court notes that the appeal response not only states that Plaintiff received a TB test at the Los Angeles County Jail on August 11, 2014, in which his induration was noted to be 0mm, but also that Plaintiff signed a consent form assenting to the May 2015 TB test at issue in the FAC, which also resulted in an induration of 0mm. (Id. at 71). While Plaintiff challenges the accuracy of the representations concerning the August 2014 TB test, he does not challenge the accuracy of the representations concerning the May 2015 test. 7 11 1 to act, the defendant cannot be liable under § 1983.’” Grenning 2 v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1157 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting 3 Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300). 4 right to a particular grievance process. 5 639 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, there is no constitutional Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 6 7 Here, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claim against Trujillo, 8 Morrisroe and Wallace can be construed to allege the wrongful 9 denial of his appeal, (FAC at 3-4), such a claim is not actionable 10 under section 1983. To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging 11 the accuracy of a statement of fact in the grievance response that 12 these Defendants signed, that, too, does not state a constitutional 13 claim. 14 inaccurate information does not, by itself, violate the subject’s 15 constitutional rights. 16 F.2d 1093, 1097 (1st Cir. 1987) (allegation that police department 17 maintained false information without a showing that the information 18 was or would be used to deprive the inmate of a constitutionally 19 protected interest failed to state a due process claim); Pruett v. 20 Levi, 21 inaccuracy in FBI criminal file does not state constitutional 22 claim). 23 information about where he was on August 11, 2014 was, will, or 24 even could be used against him. 25 with leave to amend. 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 \\ The simple fact that an institutional record contains 622 F.2d 256, Plaintiff See, e.g., Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834 258 has (6th not Cir. alleged 1980) that (mere the existence allegedly of false Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed, 12 1 D. The FAC Violates Rule 8 2 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a 4 complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give 6 the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 7 grounds upon which it rests.’” 8 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 9 violated when a pleading “says too little” and “when a pleading Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Rule 8 may be 10 says too much.” 11 2013) (emphasis in original); see also Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058- 12 59 13 difficulty understanding and responding to the complaint). (a complaint Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. violates Rule 8 if a defendant would have 14 15 The FAC violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff does not clearly 16 identify the nature of each of his legal claims and the specific 17 facts giving rise to each individual claim. 18 does not clearly state what constitutional right each individual 19 Defendant may have violated. 20 one 21 previous orders in this action and documents from Plaintiff’s other 22 civil rights and habeas proceedings that have no relation to this 23 case and do not clarify or advance Plaintiff’s current claims. 24 (See FAC at 13-128). 25 citations and statements of law. hundred pages of For example, the FAC Additionally, the FAC attaches over undifferentiated “exhibits,” including The FAC also includes unnecessary case (See, e.g., id. at 8). 26 27 Finally, the FAC’s repeated allegations that Defendants failed 28 to adhere to CDCR regulations do not state a constitutional claim. 13 1 The mere violation of state prison regulations, by itself, is not 2 actionable under § 1983. 3 Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (“‘[T]here is no § 1983 4 liability for violating prison policy. 5 [the 6 (quoting Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997)). 7 Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend. official] violated See Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s his [Plaintiff] must prove that constitutional right . . . .’”)) 8 9 IV. 10 CONCLUSION 11 12 For the reasons stated above, the First Amended Complaint is 13 dismissed, with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to 14 pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date 15 of this memorandum and Order within which to file a Second Amended 16 Complaint. 17 defects described above. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the 18 19 Furthermore, Plaintiff shall omit any claims or allegations 20 that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted in the 21 Complaint, but shall instead attempt to cure the deficiencies 22 addressed in this Order. 23 shall be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation 24 “Second Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this 25 action. 26 or the FAC. 27 \\ 28 \\ The Second Amended Complaint, if any, It shall not refer in any manner to the original Complaint 14 1 In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should confine his 2 allegations to the operative facts supporting each of his claims. 3 Plaintiff 4 Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain statement 5 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 6 Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil 7 rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of 8 which is attached. 9 identify the nature of each separate legal claim and make clear is advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should 10 what specific factual allegations support his claims. Plaintiff 11 is strongly encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit 12 irrelevant details. 13 law or include legal argument. It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case 14 15 Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file 16 a Second Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies 17 described above, will result in a recommendation that this action 18 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court 19 orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 20 21 Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to 22 pursue this action he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice 23 \\ 24 \\ 25 \\ 26 \\ 27 \\ 28 15 1 of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 41(a)(1). 3 convenience. A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s 4 5 DATED: February 9, 2018 /S/ __________ SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16