Martin v. Muniz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 || GEORGE MARTIN, Case No. 17-01690 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 MOTION TO SCREEN 10 V. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE; ADDRESSING W. MUNIZ, et al., PENDING MOTIONS Defendants.

(Docket Nos. 128, 130, 134) 16

M Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil ~ 18 || rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison |! officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). The Court °° || granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failing *! || to comply with Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil *? || Procedure (“FRCP”), and granted Plaintiff leave to amend to *3 || attempt to correct the deficiencies. (Docket No. 98.) Plaintiff ** || filed an amended complaint, (Docket No. 107), which the Court || screened and again dismissed for failure to comply with Rule || 18(a). (Docket No. 120.) Plaintiff filed a second amended | complaint. (Docket No. 129, hereinafter “SAC.”) Defendants 28

1 || move for screening of the SAC. (Docket No. 134.) The motion 2 || is GRANTED. 3 4 DISCUSSION 5 || A. Background 6 At the outset of this action, the Court found the original 7 || complaint stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth g || Amendment based on the allegation that Defendants acted with 9 || deliberate indifference to his pain management and neurological 19 || and orthopedic medical condition since 2007. (Docket No. 19 at 11 || 2.) Subsequently in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the 12 || Court found that Plaintiff's action was based on two different and 13 || apparently unrelated medical issues: inadequate pain medication S 14 || (for his spinal condition) and vision care needs. (Docket No. 98 3 is || at 6.) In filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff was advised that 16 || he was to limit the claims in this action to an Eighth Amendment 17 || deliberate indifference claim regarding either his pain 1g || management or his vision care needs. (/d. at 7.) After screening 19 || the amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had again 20 || failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) 21 || because it included a variety of unrelated claims against different 22 || Defendants. (Docket No. 120 at 3.) Plaintiff as granted one final 23 || opportunity to file a second amended complaint that satisfies both 24 || Rules 18(a) and 20(a). Ud. at 5.) Because it appeared that 25 || Plaintiff wished to pursue the claim regarding his pain 26 || management, the Court instructed him to limit the allegations in 27 || the SAC to facts regarding his pain management and against only

1 || those Defendants that were personally involved in his pain 2 || management. (/d.) 3 Defendants move for screening of the SAC and assert that 4 || the SAC includes a variety of unrelated allegations. (Docket No. 5 || 134 at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed a reply, asserting that he has complied 6 || with the court order and limited the allegations to pain 7 || management. (Docket No. 136.) Plaintiff also asserts that the g || denial of corrective surgery for his orthopedic and neurological 9 || injuries gave rise to the need of continuity of pain management 190 || care treatment. (Martin Decl. 10, 13.) 11 || B. Analysis 21 Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: Dr. Kim R. 13 || Kumar, MD; Dr. Darrin M. Bright, Tuan Anh Tran (pharmacist); S 14 || Dr. Eric Sullivan; Dr. Edward Miles Birdsong; Dr. Jennifer Villa; 3 is || and Warden William Muniz. (SAC 9 4-11.) Plaintiff asserts 2 16 || two claims for relief: (1) Defendants acted with deliberate 5 17 || indifference in depriving him of adequate treatment for his pain 5 ig || management for “neurological and orthopedic serious injuries,” i9 || particularly in light of the their failure to provide him with 20 || corrective surgeries that would lower or eliminate such need, 21 || (SAC ¥§] 66-67); and (2) a procedural due process claim under the 22 || Fourteenth Amendment for the arbitrary termination of certain 23 || pain medications that were prescribed to stabilize his injuries, (id. 24 || 9] 68-69). 25 With respect to Plaintiff’s second claim for relief, the 26 || Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause only applies to the 27 || medical treatment provided to pretrial detainees, not to convicted

1 || prisoners like Plaintiff. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 2 || F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 3 || 520, 535 (1979)). Accordingly, Plaintiff must challenge the 4 || allegedly arbitrary decision to terminate pain medication under 5 || the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court will liberally 6 || construe that claim as being raised under the Eighth Amendment 7 || rather than dismissing it for failure to state a claim under the g || Fourteenth Amendment. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 9 || 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may 11 || properly join as many claims as he has against an opposing party. 12 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But parties may be joined as defendants in 13 || one action only “if any right to relief is asserted against them S 14 || jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising 3 15 || out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 2 146 || or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all 17 || defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Put 1g || simply, claims against different parties may be joined together in 19 || one complaint only if the claims have similar factual 20 || backgrounds and have common issues of law or fact. Coughlin v. 21 || Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350-51 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 The SAC does contain allegations that are not directly 23 || related to the issue of his pain management at SVSP. For 24 || example, Plaintiff again describes, as he did in the amended 25 || complaint, Defendant Dr. Kumar’s actions related to Plaintiffs 26 27

1 || pain medication while housed at the SATF-Corcoran! during 2 || 2003, which are separate from the claims regarding his treatment 3 || at SVSP. (SAC 9§ 14-16.) Although Defendant Kumar has since 4 || become employed at SVSP and is a named defendant in this 5 || action, it is highly doubtful that Plaintiff can pursue a claim 6 || against Defendant Kumar for acts that occurred 16 years ago. 7 || Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges, among others, the following g || claims that are not strictly related to his pain management: the 9 || claim that after he was transferred to SVSP in February 2007, he 19 || was issued the wrong blood pressure medicine, (id. 420); the 11 || claim that Plaintiff never received a CAT-scan that was ordered 12 || in October 2008 by Dr. Kim at Mercy Hospital, (id. {| 28); the 13 || claim that he did not receive treatment after an altercation in his S 14 || cell in July 2009, (id. § 30); the claim that Natividad Hospital 3 is || withheld certain treatment for his neck and back at the orders of 2 46 || “SVSP-doctors” in July 2012, and only examined his lungs, (id. 17 || §§ 35-36); the claim that Defendant Dr. Eric Sullivan denied him 1g || treatment after an assault on August 1, 2013, (id. 40-41); the i9 || claim that Defendant Warden W. Muniz submitted 20 || documentation in a civil rights case stating that Plaintiff was 21 || recetving appropriate medical care, which was “egregiously 22 || incorrect,” (id. 4 43); and the claim that Defendant Bright had 23 || Plaintiff removed from the emergency room at Natividad 24 || Hospital on 10-01-17 although he was receiving beneficial 25 26 || |'SATF-Corcoran refers to the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, California.

1 || treatment there and after he returned to prison, his condition 2 || worsened, (id. § 57). 3 Liberally construed, the Court finds the SAC contains 4 || sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim for 5 || deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 1.e., Plaintiffs 6 || chronic pain related to certain longstanding injuries to his neck 7 || and back and the failure to provide corrective surgeries to address g || that pain. This claim is based on the allegations related to the 9 || termination of certain types of medication, the form of the 10 || medication prescribed (e.g., crush-float or liquid), and the 11 || repeated denials of his requests for pain medication. Although 12 || Plaintiff asserts that he included certain “contextual facts to 13 || establish and deduce deliberate indifference” to his serious S 14 || medical needs, (SAC, Attach. at 5; SAC 9 15, 34), many of the 3 is || allegations contained therein clearly go beyond providing mere 2 46 || context for his chronic pain management claim. See supra at 5. 5 17 Plaintiff has already been permitted two opportunities to file 5 ig || an amended complaint in lieu of dismissal. In the interest of 19 || justice, the Court will strike the portions of the SAC that raises 20 || facts unrelated to his pain management while at SVSP. 21 || Specifically, the following paragraphs from the SAC shall be 22 || stricken as containing facts that do not comply with Rules 18(a) 23 || and 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 99 14-19; □ 24 || 28-36; □□□ 40-47; 99 57-58. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue other, 25 || unrelated claims, he must file them in a separate § 1983 action. 26 || /// 27 || ///

1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, 3 1. Defendants’ motion for a screening order of the SAC is 4 || GRANTED. (Docket No. 134.) 5 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis (“IFP”), (Docket Nos. 128, 130), are DENIED as moot 7 || since he was granted IFP status at the outset of this action. g || (Docket No. 20.) Plaintiffis advised that IFP status does not 9 || entitle him to a complete waiver of filing fees. Rather, it means io || that funds for the filing fee will be taken from income to 11 || Plaintiff's account in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B)(1) 12 || until the entire amount has been paid. (/d.) 13 3. This matter shall proceed on the Eighth Amendment S 14 || claim with respect to Plaintiff's pain management, including the 3 is || denial of corrective surgery to address the chronic pain, at SVSP Zig against Defendants Dr. Kim R. Kumar, Dr. Darrin M. Bright, 5 17 || Tuan Anh Tran (Pharmacist), Dr. Edward Miles Birdsong, Dr. E. 5 ig || M. Birdsong, and Dr. Jennifer Villa. 19 The Clerk shall terminate Dr. Eric Sullivan and Warden W. 20 || Muniz from this action since the portions of the SAC containing 21 || specific allegations against them have been stricken, and this 22 || action therefore contains no cognizable claims against them. 23 4. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this 24 || order is filed, Defendants shall file a motion for summary 25 || judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in 26 || the complaint found to be cognizable above. 27 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be

1 || Supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform 2 || in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 || Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be 4 || granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in 5 || dispute. If any Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot 6 || be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court 7 || prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 8 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for 9 || Summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff io || must be concurrently provided the appropriate warnings 11 || under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 12 || bane). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 13 5. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be S 14 || filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than 3 is || twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ motion is A 16 || filed. 17 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules 1g || of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 i9 || (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come 20 || forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on 21 || every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that 22 || failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 23 || judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the 24 || granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff 25 || without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th 2 || Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th 27 Cir. 1994).

1 6. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 2 || fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition 1s filed. 3 7. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date 4 || the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion 5 || unless the Court so orders at a later date. 6 8. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court 7 || must be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once g || counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the 9 || document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 10 9. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal 11 || Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal 12 || Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is required 13 || before the parties may conduct discovery. S 14 10. Itis Plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. 3 is || Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address 2 16 || and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. 17 || Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 1g || failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 |} 41(b). 20 11. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the 21 || deadline sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a 22 || showing of good cause. 23 This order terminates Docket Nos. 128, 130, and 134. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. han 25 || Dated: October 4, 2019 Rom thw mn) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 27 || □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ screen sacsve