(PC) Padilla v. Patel

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 21, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00837
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 LARRY D. PADILLA, 1:19-cv-00837-NONE-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER

13 vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 18, WITH 14 DR. PATEL, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND

15 Defendants. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 17

18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Larry D. Padilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 22 commencing this action on June 14, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint is now before the court 23 for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 24 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 27 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 2 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 3 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 4 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 5 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 6 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 7 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 9 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 10 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 11 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 12 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 13 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 14 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 15 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 16 plausibility standard. Id. 17 III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT 18 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California. The 19 events in the Complaint allegedly took place at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California, when 20 Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 21 Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Patel and P.A (Physician’s Assistant) Hitchman 22 (collectively, “Defendants”). 23 Dr. Patel - Allegations 24 A summary of Plaintiff’s allegations follows: 25 On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff was seen by defendant Dr. Patel for about 90 seconds, just 26 long enough to be told his eggcrate mattress would be taken away from him. Dr. Patel knew that 27 Plaintiff needed his mattress but due to a 602 prison grievance filed by Plaintiff after R&R took 28 the mattress in the first place, Dr. Patel took away Plaintiff’s right to have the mattress without 1 any medical data to support his decision. Dr. Patel has a responsibility to review Plaintiff’s 2 medical file to be alerted why Plaintiff was issued health care appliances and what sort of chronic 3 conditions Plaintiff is being treated for. Dr. Patel took away Plaintiff’s eggcrate mattress 4 knowing that Plaintiff suffers from chronic back and knee pain. Plaintiff alleges that his pain has 5 increased. 6 Physician’s Assistant Hitchman - Allegations 7 On December 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a staff complaint against defendant Physician’s 8 Assistant Hitchman for violating Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Two weeks later, when 9 defendant Hitchman found out about the staff complaint, he acted in retaliation against Plaintiff 10 arranging for custody staff to come and take Plaintiff’s orthopedic boots, which Plaintiff had paid 11 for and were to be permanent. Plaintiff wore the boots to relieve severe pain in his knees and 12 back. Plaintiff was retaliated against by defendant Hitchman because Plaintiff exercised his 13 rights to file a staff complaint. 14 On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff was seen by defendant Hitchman. Plaintiff told 15 Hitchman about the severe pain in his knee which would become really pronounced when 16 Plaintiff’s knee moved side to side as Plaintiff walked from his building to the chow hall or to 17 medical appointments. Defendant Hitchman, who is not qualified to make an orthopedic 18 diagnosis, roughly grabbed Plaintiff’s leg forcing Plaintiff’s knee from side to side, causing 19 Plaintiff to scream out in pain. Then, Plaintiff’s cane was taken away and he was told there was 20 nothing wrong with his knee. He was also told that if he went “man down,” he would be written 21 up for it. 22 Defendant Hitchman acted deliberately knowing that Plaintiff had a severe issue with 23 knee pain, which was written in Plaintiff’s medical file. Hitchman knew he should have referred 24 Plaintiff to the doctor for follow-up because Hitchman knew he was not qualified to diagnosis 25 Plaintiff’s knee condition. Plaintiff was left without any form of support to take the weight off 26 his knees and now suffers severe pain when he walks. 27 Relief Requested 28 As relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages (compensatory and punitive), and 1 reasonable attorney’s fees. 2 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 3 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

4 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to 5 be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 6 secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 7

8 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 9 “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a 10 method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 11 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. 12 Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 13 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. 14 Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent that the violation of a state law 15 amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the 16 federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 17 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under 18 color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him or her of rights secured by the Constitution 19 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of 21 state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, 22 ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 23 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 24 Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 25 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The requisite causal connection may be 26 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 27 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 479 28 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely resembles 1 the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 2 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 3 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 A. Violation of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5 Plaintiff alleges multiple claims in the Complaint that are largely unrelated. Plaintiff may 6 not proceed in one action on a myriad of unrelated claims against different staff members. “The 7 controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim to relief as an 8 original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent 9 or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an 10 opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 11 Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims 12 against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a 13 multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the 14 required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits 15 or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 17 In this instance, Plaintiff’s Complaint describes two unrelated events: (1) In June 2018, 18 Dr. Patel took away Plaintiff’s eggcrate mattress; and (2) In December 2018, Physician’s 19 Assistant Hitchman took away Plaintiff’s cane and told him there was nothing wrong with his 20 knees. 21 Claims are not related simply because they concern Plaintiff’s medical treatment or 22 retaliation. Plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue unrelated claims in this single action. 23 Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend the Complaint and choose to proceed on only one of his 24 claims. In amending, Plaintiff should determine which of the claims he wishes to pursue and re- 25 allege those claims only. Plaintiff must choose whether to proceed with his claims against Dr. 26 Patel, or with his claims against P.A. Hitchman. 27 28 1 If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with both claims, he can file a new case addressing the 2 claims that he does not bring in this case. If Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint also violates 3 Rule 18(a) despite this admonition, the Court will decide which claims shall proceed. 4 In the paragraphs that follow, the court shall set forth the legal standards for the claims it 5 appears Plaintiff wishes to bring. 6 B Legal Standards 7 1. Medical Claim – Eighth Amendment Claim 8 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 9 must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 10 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for 11 deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by 12 demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury 13 or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need 14 was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 15 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 16 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown 17 by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm 18 caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference 19 may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical 20 treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. 21 Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to 22 further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical 23 needs. Id. at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 24 (9th Cir. 1985)). 25 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 26 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the 27 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but 28 that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 1 825, 837 (1970). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the 2 official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting 3 Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). “A showing of 4 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under 5 the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060. “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 6 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)). 7 “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities 8 regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 9 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, a plaintiff “must show that the course 10 of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . 11 that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” 12 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). 13 2. Retaliation – First Amendment Claim 14 Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech 15 or to petition the government may support a 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 16 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 17 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 18 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 19 adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 20 such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 21 did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 22 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); 23 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 24 An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison 25 grievance is sufficient to support a claim under section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 26 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must “‘afford appropriate deference and flexibility’ to prison officials 27 in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for conduct alleged to be 28 retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 1 (1995)). The burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate “that there were no legitimate correctional 2 purposes motivating the actions he complains of.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808. 3 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint violates Rule 18 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure, “[t]he court should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires.” The court 7 shall dismiss the Complaint for violation of Rule 18, with leave to amend. 8 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Noll v. Carlson, 9 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). To cure the Rule 18 deficiency in the Complaint, 10 Plaintiff must choose to proceed with only one of his unrelated claims: (1) against defendant Dr. 11 Patel, or (2) against defendant Hitchman. Plaintiff may not proceed with unrelated claims in the 12 amended complaint. 13 The amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 14 named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights, 15 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d. 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set 16 forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal at 678 17 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each 18 defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must 19 demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 20 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the 21 opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of adding new defendants for unrelated issues. 22 Plaintiff should also note that he has not been granted leave to add allegations of events occurring 23 after the initiation of this suit on June 14, 2019. 24 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 25 v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012), and it must be complete in itself 26 without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 27 complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 28 in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 1 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 2 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 3 under penalty of perjury. 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on June 14, 2019, is DISMISSED for violation of Rule 6 18, with leave to amend; 7 2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 8 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 9 a First Amended Complaint either against defendant Dr. Patel, or against 10 defendant Hitchman; 11 4. Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and 12 refer to the case number 1:19-cv-00837-NONE-GSA-PC; and 13 5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 14 this case be dismissed. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

17 Dated: August 21, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28