1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY GUILLORY, No. 2:21-cv-0462 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TSHERING BHUTIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 17, which is before the 21 court for screening. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will order service on 22 defendants Tshering Bhutia and Tiffany Flores. 23 I. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 The FAC alleges that defendant Bhutia, a psychiatrist, and defendant Flores, a registered 25 nurse, both of whom were employees at California Medical Facility – Vacaville during the 26 relevant period, deprived him of his Eighth Amendment rights when: (1) defendant Bhutia 27 ordered that plaintiff be given psychotropic medication against his will, despite the fact that he 28 was not experiencing a mental health crisis, and (2) defendant Flores failed to accurately 1 document his severe adverse reactions to medication, thus prolonging his suffering. ECF No. 17 2 at 3, 7-10. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that after he had complained about his cell being too cold 3 and that it was preventing him from falling asleep, he was removed from his cell and 4 “confronted” by Dr. Bhutia. Id. at 3. In response, Bhutia determined that plaintiff was 5 “agitated,” and she forced plaintiff to be injected with chlorpromazine and other medication he 6 did not want. Id. at 3, 7. Prior to this incident, plaintiff had no history of prescribed anti- 7 psychotic or other psychiatric medication, nor did he have a need for it. Id. at 7. 8 After being injected with the drugs, plaintiff had several physical reactions including 9 general and left arm pain, nausea, throbbing headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, and blackouts. ECF 10 No. 17 at 3, 7. When he repeatedly complained later that day to nurse Flores, she falsified and/or 11 improperly documented plaintiff’s records in her progress notes, indicating that he had no 12 physical complaints and no side effects from the medication. Id. at 7. 13 Plaintiff further summarily asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. 14 Id. at 4. No additional facts support this assertion. 15 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 16 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 18 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 19 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 21 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 23 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 24 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 25 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 26 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 27 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 28 //// 1 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 2 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 3 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 4 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 5 Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 6 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 7 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 8 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 9 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 A. The FAC States Eighth Amendment Claims Against Both Defendants 12 In order to state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on 13 inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to 14 evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 15 (1976). To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and 16 that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 17 299 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). A serious 18 medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 19 injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 20 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990). The requisite state of mind is “deliberate indifference.” Hudson 21 v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4 (1992). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 22 subjectively knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety. Toguchi v. 23 Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 Plaintiff has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against 25 defendants Bhutia and Flores. Regarding Bhutia’s alleged forced injection of plaintiff with 26 chlorpromazine and other unwanted medication, “[a] difference of opinion between a physician 27 and a prisoner . . . concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 28 indifference.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 1 However, the allegations here are that Dr. Bhutia ordered involuntary psychotropic medication 2 for an inmate who was not experiencing a mental health crisis.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY GUILLORY, No. 2:21-cv-0462 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TSHERING BHUTIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 17, which is before the 21 court for screening. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will order service on 22 defendants Tshering Bhutia and Tiffany Flores. 23 I. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 The FAC alleges that defendant Bhutia, a psychiatrist, and defendant Flores, a registered 25 nurse, both of whom were employees at California Medical Facility – Vacaville during the 26 relevant period, deprived him of his Eighth Amendment rights when: (1) defendant Bhutia 27 ordered that plaintiff be given psychotropic medication against his will, despite the fact that he 28 was not experiencing a mental health crisis, and (2) defendant Flores failed to accurately 1 document his severe adverse reactions to medication, thus prolonging his suffering. ECF No. 17 2 at 3, 7-10. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that after he had complained about his cell being too cold 3 and that it was preventing him from falling asleep, he was removed from his cell and 4 “confronted” by Dr. Bhutia. Id. at 3. In response, Bhutia determined that plaintiff was 5 “agitated,” and she forced plaintiff to be injected with chlorpromazine and other medication he 6 did not want. Id. at 3, 7. Prior to this incident, plaintiff had no history of prescribed anti- 7 psychotic or other psychiatric medication, nor did he have a need for it. Id. at 7. 8 After being injected with the drugs, plaintiff had several physical reactions including 9 general and left arm pain, nausea, throbbing headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, and blackouts. ECF 10 No. 17 at 3, 7. When he repeatedly complained later that day to nurse Flores, she falsified and/or 11 improperly documented plaintiff’s records in her progress notes, indicating that he had no 12 physical complaints and no side effects from the medication. Id. at 7. 13 Plaintiff further summarily asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. 14 Id. at 4. No additional facts support this assertion. 15 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 16 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 18 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 19 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 21 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 22 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 23 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 24 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 25 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 26 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 27 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 28 //// 1 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 2 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 3 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 4 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 5 Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 6 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. 7 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 8 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 9 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 A. The FAC States Eighth Amendment Claims Against Both Defendants 12 In order to state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on 13 inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to 14 evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 15 (1976). To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and 16 that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 17 299 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). A serious 18 medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 19 injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 20 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990). The requisite state of mind is “deliberate indifference.” Hudson 21 v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4 (1992). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 22 subjectively knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety. Toguchi v. 23 Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 Plaintiff has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against 25 defendants Bhutia and Flores. Regarding Bhutia’s alleged forced injection of plaintiff with 26 chlorpromazine and other unwanted medication, “[a] difference of opinion between a physician 27 and a prisoner . . . concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 28 indifference.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 1 However, the allegations here are that Dr. Bhutia ordered involuntary psychotropic medication 2 for an inmate who was not experiencing a mental health crisis. At this stage the court must accept 3 as true the allegation that plaintiff was not in psychiatric crisis, and draws an inference in his 4 favor that he was not “agitated” to the point of requiring sedation. The administration of 5 medically unnecessary medication clearly creates a potentially excessive risk to inmate health and 6 safety. Liberally construing plaintiff’s allegations, they support relief and plaintiff may proceed 7 on this claim against Dr. Bhutia. 8 As for defendant Flores, it is well-settled that an inadvertent failure to provide adequate 9 medical care cannot be said to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See 10 Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. Here, however, the allegations support an inference of deliberate 11 indifference. The FAC states that plaintiff was displaying obvious symptoms of a serious adverse 12 reaction to medication, that Flores was subjectively aware of these reactions, that she failed to 13 document them, and that she created a false medical record. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed 14 on this claim against Flores as well. 15 B. The FAC States a Due Process Claim Against Dr. Bhutia 16 The decision to forcibly medicate an inmate implicates both substantive and procedural 17 due process. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 222 (1990). Inmates have “a significant 18 liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due 19 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731, 744 20 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harper, 494 U.S. at 221-22). However, the liberty interest “must be 21 ‘defined in the context of an inmate’s confinement.’” Id. at 745 (quoting Harper, 494 U.S. at 22 222). Prison officials have an obligation to provide prisoners with medical treatment and have a 23 duty to take reasonable measures to ensure an inmate’s safety. Harper, 494 U.S. at 225. 24 Involuntary medication may be permissible when justified by legitimate penological interests and 25 administered pursuant to policy that adequately protects inmate rights. See Loughner, 672 F.3d at 26 745. 27 On screening, the court accepts the allegations of the FAC and draws reasonable 28 inferences from them in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff’s allegations imply that he was neither in 1 | mental health crisis nor agitated in a way that threatened institutional security, and therefore that 2 || the involuntary injection was not penologically justified. Thus construed, the allegations state a 3 || due process claim against Dr. Bhutia regarding involuntary medication. 4 CONCLUSION 5 In sum, plaintiff has raised cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims 6 || against defendants Bhutia and Flores. He has also raised a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment 7 || due process claim against defendant Bhutia. Therefore, service of the FAC will be ordered. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), service of the first 10 || amended complaint (ECF No. 17) is appropriate; 11 2. Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against the following defendants, both of whom 12 || are employed at California Medical Facility - Vacaville: 13 e Tshering Bhutia, a psychiatrist, and 14 e Tiffany Flores, a registered nurse. 15 3. Specifically, the FAC states the following claims for relief: 16 e Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference against both defendants, and 17 e Fourteenth Amendment due process violation against Thsering Bhutia only. 18 4. If defendants either waive service or are personally served, they are required to reply 19 | tothe complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). 20 Under separate order, the court shall direct that service be initiated on these defendants 21 || under the court’s E-Service Pilot Program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 22 || California. 23 || DATED: May 26, 2023 ~ Cttt0 Lhar—e_ 4 ALLISONCLAIRE. 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28