3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Case No. 3:19-cv-00068-MMD-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8
9 ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
10 Defendants.
11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Jones, currently incarcerated and in the custody of the 14 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) and housed at the Northern Nevada 15 Correctional Center (“NNCC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against several 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 6.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17 82 (“R&R”)) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin. The R&R recommends 18 the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 55) as moot, and grant Plaintiff’s 19 subsequent motion to amend (ECF No. 72). Judge Baldwin further recommends that 20 Counts I, II, III, and IV of Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 72-1 21 (“SAC”)) proceed, but that Defendants Kathryn Reyonds, Jayson Bloomfeld, John 22 Borrowman, and Venus Fajuta be dismissed from this action. 23 Plaintiff filed a partial objection (ECF No. 89 (“Objection”))1 to Judge Baldwin’s 24 R&R. Plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently pled other named Defendants in Count III of 25 the SAC in addition to Defendant Michael Minev. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff does not appear to 26
1Plaintiff’s Objection includes an objection to the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 27 83). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Judge Baldwin clearly erred in establishing the scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection as to the 28 scheduling order. 2 with Plaintiff and will grant his objection with respect to Dr. Martin Naughton as Defendant 3 in Count III. Accordingly, Judge Baldwin’s R&R is adopted in part and denied in part. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 The Court incorporates by reference Judge Baldwin’s recitation of factual 6 background and procedural history provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts here. 7 (ECF No. 82 at 1-2.) Relevant to this order, the R&R states that the SAC contains “Count 8 III, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim (related to 9 Help-C) against Defendant Minev[.]” (Id. at 4.) The R&R recommends that Count III 10 proceed accordingly. (Id. at 5.) 11 Plaintiff alleges in the SAC the following. Plaintiff has a record of chronic hepatitis 12 C dating back to 2004. (ECF No. 72-1 at 10.) On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff was seen 13 by Naughton and was told that Plaintiff did not require any treatment pursuant to Medical 14 Directive (“MD”) 219. (Id. at 11, n1.) Naughton “ignored signs of significant fibrosis and 15 failed to undertake testing.” (Id. at 20.) He was aware that Plaintiff’s APRI score 16 “suggested significant fibrosis possible.” (Id.) No treatment was provided at the time and 17 no treatment was approved for two more years. (Id.) As a result of the delays, Plaintiff has 18 now suffered a “heighten/factual injury as his liver has been damaged by way of the delay.” 19 (Id. at 26.) Moreover, Plaintiff states in paragraph 54 of Count III of the SAC, “The 20 aforegoing paragraphs 1 through 53 above are incorporated herein as through fully setout 21 pursuant to FRCP 10(c).” (Id. at 22.) 22 III. LEGAL STANDARD 23 A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 24 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 26 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 27 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 28 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court will conduct a de novo of the 2 IV. DISCUSSION 3 Following a de novo review of the R&R portion that Plaintiff objects, relevant briefs, 4 and other records in this case, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Objection. 5 The Court therefore will adopt in part and deny in part Judge Baldwin’s R&R. 6 The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to amend be granted as 7 to Count III against Defendant Michael Minev. (ECF No. 82 at 3-6.)2 Plaintiff argues that 8 the R&R interprets Count III too narrowly as Plaintiff specifically incorporated by reference 9 paragraphs 1 through 53 preceding the allegations he sets forth in Count III. (ECF No. 89 10 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Minev is not the only individual but Naughton and 11 others played a role in denying and delaying Plaintiff’s treatment for years. (Id. at 3.) Upon 12 review of the SAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable Eighth Amendment 13 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Naughton. 14 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment 15 and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and 16 decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth 17 Amendment when he or she acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical 18 needs of an inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “To establish an Eighth 19 Amendment violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard—that the 20 deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a 21 subjective standard—deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 22 Cir. 2012). 23 To establish the first prong, “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by 24 demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 25
26 2The R&R further recommends Counts I, II and IV of the SAC also be granted and that Defendants Reynolds, Bloomfeld, Borrowman, and Fajuta be dismissed. Because 27 Plaintiff does not raise objections to these recommendations, the Court declines to conduct a de novo review (see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)) and adopts them accordingly as set 28 forth in the R&R. 2 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy the deliberate indifference 3 prong, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 4 or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference may 5 appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, 6 or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. 7 (internal quotations omitted). When an inmate alleges that delay of medical treatment 8 evinces deliberate indifference, the inmate must show that the delay led to further injury. 9 See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) 10 (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of 11 deliberate medical indifference”). 12 Here, Plaintiff alleges in the SAC that he has chronic hepatitis C since 2004. (ECF 13 No. 72-1 at 10.) Naughton was aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs when Plaintiff 14 was seen by Naughton on September 17, 2018. (Id. at 11.) Despite Plaintiff’s APRI score, 15 Naughton did not treat Plaintiff and cited to MD 219.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 CHRISTOPHER A. JONES, Case No. 3:19-cv-00068-MMD-CLB
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8
9 ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
10 Defendants.
11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Jones, currently incarcerated and in the custody of the 14 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) and housed at the Northern Nevada 15 Correctional Center (“NNCC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against several 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 6.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17 82 (“R&R”)) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin. The R&R recommends 18 the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 55) as moot, and grant Plaintiff’s 19 subsequent motion to amend (ECF No. 72). Judge Baldwin further recommends that 20 Counts I, II, III, and IV of Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (ECF No. 72-1 21 (“SAC”)) proceed, but that Defendants Kathryn Reyonds, Jayson Bloomfeld, John 22 Borrowman, and Venus Fajuta be dismissed from this action. 23 Plaintiff filed a partial objection (ECF No. 89 (“Objection”))1 to Judge Baldwin’s 24 R&R. Plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently pled other named Defendants in Count III of 25 the SAC in addition to Defendant Michael Minev. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff does not appear to 26
1Plaintiff’s Objection includes an objection to the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 27 83). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Judge Baldwin clearly erred in establishing the scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection as to the 28 scheduling order. 2 with Plaintiff and will grant his objection with respect to Dr. Martin Naughton as Defendant 3 in Count III. Accordingly, Judge Baldwin’s R&R is adopted in part and denied in part. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 The Court incorporates by reference Judge Baldwin’s recitation of factual 6 background and procedural history provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts here. 7 (ECF No. 82 at 1-2.) Relevant to this order, the R&R states that the SAC contains “Count 8 III, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim (related to 9 Help-C) against Defendant Minev[.]” (Id. at 4.) The R&R recommends that Count III 10 proceed accordingly. (Id. at 5.) 11 Plaintiff alleges in the SAC the following. Plaintiff has a record of chronic hepatitis 12 C dating back to 2004. (ECF No. 72-1 at 10.) On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff was seen 13 by Naughton and was told that Plaintiff did not require any treatment pursuant to Medical 14 Directive (“MD”) 219. (Id. at 11, n1.) Naughton “ignored signs of significant fibrosis and 15 failed to undertake testing.” (Id. at 20.) He was aware that Plaintiff’s APRI score 16 “suggested significant fibrosis possible.” (Id.) No treatment was provided at the time and 17 no treatment was approved for two more years. (Id.) As a result of the delays, Plaintiff has 18 now suffered a “heighten/factual injury as his liver has been damaged by way of the delay.” 19 (Id. at 26.) Moreover, Plaintiff states in paragraph 54 of Count III of the SAC, “The 20 aforegoing paragraphs 1 through 53 above are incorporated herein as through fully setout 21 pursuant to FRCP 10(c).” (Id. at 22.) 22 III. LEGAL STANDARD 23 A. Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 24 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 26 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 27 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 28 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court will conduct a de novo of the 2 IV. DISCUSSION 3 Following a de novo review of the R&R portion that Plaintiff objects, relevant briefs, 4 and other records in this case, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Objection. 5 The Court therefore will adopt in part and deny in part Judge Baldwin’s R&R. 6 The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to amend be granted as 7 to Count III against Defendant Michael Minev. (ECF No. 82 at 3-6.)2 Plaintiff argues that 8 the R&R interprets Count III too narrowly as Plaintiff specifically incorporated by reference 9 paragraphs 1 through 53 preceding the allegations he sets forth in Count III. (ECF No. 89 10 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Minev is not the only individual but Naughton and 11 others played a role in denying and delaying Plaintiff’s treatment for years. (Id. at 3.) Upon 12 review of the SAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable Eighth Amendment 13 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Naughton. 14 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment 15 and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and 16 decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth 17 Amendment when he or she acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical 18 needs of an inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “To establish an Eighth 19 Amendment violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard—that the 20 deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a 21 subjective standard—deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 22 Cir. 2012). 23 To establish the first prong, “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by 24 demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 25
26 2The R&R further recommends Counts I, II and IV of the SAC also be granted and that Defendants Reynolds, Bloomfeld, Borrowman, and Fajuta be dismissed. Because 27 Plaintiff does not raise objections to these recommendations, the Court declines to conduct a de novo review (see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)) and adopts them accordingly as set 28 forth in the R&R. 2 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy the deliberate indifference 3 prong, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 4 or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference may 5 appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, 6 or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. 7 (internal quotations omitted). When an inmate alleges that delay of medical treatment 8 evinces deliberate indifference, the inmate must show that the delay led to further injury. 9 See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) 10 (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of 11 deliberate medical indifference”). 12 Here, Plaintiff alleges in the SAC that he has chronic hepatitis C since 2004. (ECF 13 No. 72-1 at 10.) Naughton was aware of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs when Plaintiff 14 was seen by Naughton on September 17, 2018. (Id. at 11.) Despite Plaintiff’s APRI score, 15 Naughton did not treat Plaintiff and cited to MD 219. (Id.) As a result of the denial and 16 delay, Plaintiff’s liver was damaged. (Id. at 26.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff sufficiently 17 alleges facts to state a colorable Eighth Amendment claim against Naughton. See 18 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (observing that pro se 19 pleadings must be liberally construed.) Plaintiff, however, does not state a colorable Eighth 20 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim alleged in Count III 21 against other Defendants. Accordingly, this claim will proceed against Defendants Minev 22 and Dr. Naughton. 23 V. CONCLUSION 24 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge 25 Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 82) is adopted in part and denied in part. 26 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s partial objection (ECF No. 89) to the R&R is 27 sustained. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's claims will proceed as follow: 2 Count I: Americans with Disabilities Act/Rehabilitation Act violations (related to 3 hepatitis C) against Defendants Aranas, Sandoval, Laxalt, and Cegavski; 4 Count II: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim 5 (related to hepatitis C) against Defendants Sandoval, Laxalt, Cegavski, 6 Dzurenda, and Naughton; 7 Count I/I: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim 8 (related to hepatitis C) against Defendants Minev and Naughton; and, 9 Count IV: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 10 claim (related to right arm injury) against Defendants Long, Walls, Naughton, 11 Fukagawa, and Doe Scheduling Nurse, once Plaintiff learns their identity. 12 It is further ordered that Defendants Reynolds, Bloomfeld, Borrowman, and Fajuta 13 || are dismissed from this action. 14 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 55) is denied as moot. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's second motion to amend (ECF No. 72) is granted. 16 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's subsequent amended complaint (ECF 17 || No. 72-1), as the operative complaint in this action. 18 DATED THIS 5" Day of April 2021. 19 — 20 | Cf A ) 21 MIRANBA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23 24 25 26 27 28