KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, No. 2:19-cv-0644-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BALRAJ SINGH DHILLON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint on screening after determining that it contained multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant and, in addition, failed to allege sufficient detail with respect to any claim. ECF No. 6 at 2-4. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 11), which is screened below. Screening I. Legal Standards Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). II. Analysis A. Background Plaintiff alleges that, on February 1, 2019 and while incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, defendant J. Russell – a correctional officer – informed plaintiff that he would be re- housed from the unit where he had spent the last nine years. ECF No. 11 at 2. Russell informed plaintiff that he would be re-housed in “C-Dorm,” a location that plaintiff alleges was inadequate in light of his various medical issues (diabetes, difficulty walking, and ultra-violet light restrictions). Id. at 4. Specifically, plaintiff argues that C-Dorm was distant from the law library, gym, and visiting room and, due to his difficulty moving, would impede his access to the same. Id. Plaintiff refused re-housing. Id. Later that day, defendant Russell allegedly attempted to move plaintiff to another location (this time “J-1 housing unit”). Id. That location was medically inadequate because it would have required plaintiff to use a bunk bed. Id. Russell, in response to plaintiff’s claims regarding his medical needs, contacted defendant Balraj Singh Dhillon – plaintiff’s primary medical provider. Id. Russell inquired whether there were any legitimate medical issues which would preclude plaintiff’s planned re-housing. Id. Dhillon responded that there were not. Id. at 4-5. Attempts to re-house plaintiff by defendants Russell and other correctional staff followed. Id. at 6-10. Suffice it to say, plaintiff was ultimately assessed with a disciplinary violation for his refusal to comply with Russell’s directive to re-house. Id. at 8. He was then housed in a double- bunk unit without the benefit of a bedside stool for five weeks – conditions which allegedly caused him pain and suffering owing to his ailments. Id. at 9. Plaintiff claims that defendant Dhillon knew that re-housing him in the conditions proposed by Russell would place him at medical risk and cause him pain and suffering. Id. at 11. Despite that knowledge, he allegedly told Russell that plaintiff had no medical conditions which would preclude such housing. Id. B. Findings For purposes of screening, the court finds that, taken as true, plaintiff’s allegations state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendant Dhillon. The same cannot be said for defendant Russell, however. The allegations make clear that Russell relied upon Dhillon’s medical judgment in determining whether it was appropriate to re-house plaintiff. Non-medical personnel – like correctional officers – are entitled to rely upon the judgment of medical staff in such matters. See, e.g., Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). Here Russell was told by Dhillon that no medical issue precluded re-housing and nothing in the complaint indicates that Russell had obvious cause to question the medical judgment of plaintiff’s primary care provider. 2 LD VOUT IVI ER MVOC IR NT AY Tt
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, No. 2:19-cv-0644-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BALRAJ SINGH DHILLON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint on screening after determining that it contained multiple, unrelated claims against more than one defendant and, in addition, failed to allege sufficient detail with respect to any claim. ECF No. 6 at 2-4. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 11), which is screened below. Screening I. Legal Standards Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). II. Analysis A. Background Plaintiff alleges that, on February 1, 2019 and while incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, defendant J. Russell – a correctional officer – informed plaintiff that he would be re- housed from the unit where he had spent the last nine years. ECF No. 11 at 2. Russell informed plaintiff that he would be re-housed in “C-Dorm,” a location that plaintiff alleges was inadequate in light of his various medical issues (diabetes, difficulty walking, and ultra-violet light restrictions). Id. at 4. Specifically, plaintiff argues that C-Dorm was distant from the law library, gym, and visiting room and, due to his difficulty moving, would impede his access to the same. Id. Plaintiff refused re-housing. Id. Later that day, defendant Russell allegedly attempted to move plaintiff to another location (this time “J-1 housing unit”). Id. That location was medically inadequate because it would have required plaintiff to use a bunk bed. Id. Russell, in response to plaintiff’s claims regarding his medical needs, contacted defendant Balraj Singh Dhillon – plaintiff’s primary medical provider. Id. Russell inquired whether there were any legitimate medical issues which would preclude plaintiff’s planned re-housing. Id. Dhillon responded that there were not. Id. at 4-5. Attempts to re-house plaintiff by defendants Russell and other correctional staff followed. Id. at 6-10. Suffice it to say, plaintiff was ultimately assessed with a disciplinary violation for his refusal to comply with Russell’s directive to re-house. Id. at 8. He was then housed in a double- bunk unit without the benefit of a bedside stool for five weeks – conditions which allegedly caused him pain and suffering owing to his ailments. Id. at 9. Plaintiff claims that defendant Dhillon knew that re-housing him in the conditions proposed by Russell would place him at medical risk and cause him pain and suffering. Id. at 11. Despite that knowledge, he allegedly told Russell that plaintiff had no medical conditions which would preclude such housing. Id. B. Findings For purposes of screening, the court finds that, taken as true, plaintiff’s allegations state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendant Dhillon. The same cannot be said for defendant Russell, however. The allegations make clear that Russell relied upon Dhillon’s medical judgment in determining whether it was appropriate to re-house plaintiff. Non-medical personnel – like correctional officers – are entitled to rely upon the judgment of medical staff in such matters. See, e.g., Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). Here Russell was told by Dhillon that no medical issue precluded re-housing and nothing in the complaint indicates that Russell had obvious cause to question the medical judgment of plaintiff’s primary care provider. 2 LD VOUT IVI ER MVOC IR NT AY Tt
In light of the foregoing, the court will direct service for defendant Dhillon and it will recommend that defendant Russell be dismissed. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs amended complaint (ECF No. 11) states, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Dhillon. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendant Russell be DISMISSED from this action; and 2. This matter be referred back to the undersigned to initiate service of process of the Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Dhillon pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: May 4, 2020. Dorn AE fob Im A, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE