Trujillo v. Landsman

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 29, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01643
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JORGE TRUJILLO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01643-GMN-VCF

4 Plaintiff SCREENING ORDER

5 v.

6 H. LANDSMAN et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada Department of 10 Corrections (“NDOC”), has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of 12 counsel, and a motion requesting court records. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-3, 3). The matter 13 of the filing fee will be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s civil rights 14 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and addresses the motions. 15 I. SCREENING STANDARD 16 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an 17 incarcerated person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of 18 a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify 19 any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 20 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 21 immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be 22 liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 24 (1) the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and 25 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. 26 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 27 In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison 28 Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a federal court must dismiss an incarcerated person’s 1 claim if “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails 2 to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 3 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of a 4 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is provided for in 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under 6 § 1915 when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a 7 court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend 8 the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face 9 of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. 10 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 11 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See 12 Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to 13 state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in 14 support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 15 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, the court takes as true all 16 allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the court construes them in the 17 light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th 18 Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than 19 formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). While 20 the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 21 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 22 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 23 insufficient. Id. 24 Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations] 25 that, because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption 26 of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can provide 27 the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When 28 there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then 1 determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining 2 whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that 3 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. 4 Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by an incarcerated person may therefore be 5 dismissed sua sponte if that person’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 6 This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against 7 defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which 8 clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., 9 fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); 10 see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 II. SCREENING OF COMPLAINT1 12 In the complaint, Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while 13 Plaintiff was incarcerated at Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”). (ECF No. 1- 14 1 at 1). Plaintiff sues Defendants Dr. H. Landsman, Director of Nursing Ben Gutierrez, 15 Dr. Mathis, and Warden William Hutchings. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff brings two claims and 16 seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.2 (Id. at 5, 10). 17 Plaintiff alleges the following: For the past 14 years, Plaintiff has had severe 18 problems with his digestive system and has experienced dizziness, vomiting with yellow 19 bile, bloating, severe bitter taste on his tongue, continuous discomfort and pain on the 20 right upper side of his stomach and upper left side of his back, and occasional anal 21 bleeding. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff has gone to medical “so many times over the years” to 22 request a diagnosis, proper treatment, and surgery to correct this abnormal condition but 23 prison officials have denied his requests and grievances. (Id. at 3-4). Dr. Landsman told 24 Plaintiff that his “digestive problems [were] not life threatening” and that because Plaintiff 25 could walk and be functional Plaintiff would not be a priority. (Id. at 4). Dr. Landsman

26 1 Plaintiff’s motion for records (ECF No. 3) appears to be a status check for this 27 case. The Court denies the motion as moot in light of this order. 28 2 Plaintiff’s complaint is scanned out of order and lists claim 2 before claim 1. (See ECF No. 1-1 at 5, 7). 1 told Plaintiff that only life-threatening problems were a priority. (Id.) Prison officials 2 repeatedly denied Plaintiff the correct diagnosis and treatment because his life was not 3 in imminent danger. (Id.) 4 On several occasions, Dr. Landsman told Plaintiff that he was not going to have 5 any solutions to Plaintiff’s health problems because Plaintiff’s life was not in imminent 6 danger as demonstrated that Plaintiff was still alive. (Id. at 7). Dr. Landsman also told 7 Plaintiff that he was not going to acquire any medical solutions because Plaintiff was “not 8 a lifer” and had a release date. (Id.) Gutierrez knew about Plaintiff’s medical condition 9 for years but never gave Plaintiff a proper diagnosis or medical treatment. (Id.) Prison 10 officials have refused to treat Plaintiff’s medical conditions for 14 years. (Id.) 11 The lack of adequate medical treatment for 14 years has caused Plaintiff anxiety, 12 depression, panic attacks, yellow and green bodily fluids each day, and nausea. (Id. at 13 5). On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff had an appointment with Dr. Mathis, the new 14 psychiatrist. (Id.) Dr. Mathis told Plaintiff that he was a former pharmacist and, without 15 asking about Plaintiff’s mental status or determining whether Plaintiff’s medications were 16 working, Dr. Mathis reduced and eliminated some of Plaintiff’s medications. (Id.) Plaintiff 17 tried to explain that it took several years of treatment for prison officials to find the correct 18 medication. (Id.) Dr. Mathis told Plaintiff that it was non-negotiable. (Id.) Dr. Mathis did 19 this to several inmates and then prison administrators fired him. (Id.) Plaintiff suffers from 20 anxiety and panic attacks. (Id. at 4). 21 Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment violations related to medical treatment (claim 22 1) and mental health treatment (claim 2). (Id. at 5, 7). 23 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment 24 and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, 25 and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates the 26 Eighth Amendment when he acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical 27 needs of an inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “To establish an 28 Eighth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard—that the 1 deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a 2 subjective standard—deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 3 Cir. 2012). 4 To establish the first prong, “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by 5 demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant 6 injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 7 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy the deliberate indifference 8 prong, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 9 or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference may 10 appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, 11 or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. 12 (internal quotations omitted). When a prisoner alleges that delay of medical treatment 13 evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led to further injury. 14 See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) 15 (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of 16 deliberate medical indifference”). 17 A mental health condition may constitute a serious medical need. See Doty v. Cty. 18 of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 The Court finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for deliberate indifference to 20 serious medical needs for his long-lasting abdominal pains (claim 1). Based on the 21 allegations, Plaintiff has had severe digestive issues for 14 years which causes him pain, 22 nausea, dizziness, etc. However, because Plaintiff’s undiagnosed medical condition does 23 not appear to be life-threatening and Plaintiff has a release date, Dr. Landsman and 24 Gutierrez have denied Plaintiff treatment for 14 years and let Plaintiff suffer in pain. Claim 25 1 will proceed against Defendants Dr. Landsman and Gutierrez. 26 The Court also finds that Plaintiff states a colorable claim for deliberate indifference 27 to serious mental health needs (claim 2). Based on the allegations, Plaintiff has been 28 suffering from mental health issues for 14 years. Based on the allegations, Dr. Mathis 1 interfered with Plaintiff’s long standing mental health treatment and caused Plaintiff to 2 suffer from panic attacks. This claim will proceed against Dr. Mathis. 3 The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice against Defendant Hutchings 4 because there are no allegations against him in the complaint. 5 III. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 1-3). A litigant 7 does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 8 claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 10 afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in 11 “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 12 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 13 consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to 14 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 15 “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. 16 In the instant case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances that warrant the 17 appointment of counsel. The Court denies the motion for appointment of counsel without 18 prejudice. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 It is ordered that a decision on the application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 21 No. 1) is deferred. 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) and 23 send Plaintiff a courtesy copy. 24 It is further ordered that claim 1, alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 25 to serious medical needs, will proceed against Defendants Dr. Landsman and Gutierrez. 26 It is further ordered that claim 2, alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 27 to serious mental health needs, will proceed against Defendant Dr. Mathis. 28 It is further ordered that Defendant Hutchings is dismissed from this case without 1 prejudice. 2 It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 1-3) is 3 denied without prejudice. 4 It is further ordered that a motion for records request (ECF No. 3) is denied as 5 moot. 6 It is further ordered that given the nature of the claim(s) that the Court has 7 permitted to proceed, this action is stayed for 90 days to allow Plaintiff and Defendant(s) 8 an opportunity to settle their dispute before the $350.00 filing fee is paid, an answer is 9 filed, or the discovery process begins. During this 90-day stay period and until the Court 10 lifts the stay, no other pleadings or papers may be filed in this case, and the parties will 11 not engage in any discovery, nor are the parties required to respond to any paper filed in 12 violation of the stay unless specifically ordered by the Court to do so. The Court will refer 13 this case to the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program, and the Court will enter a 14 subsequent order. Regardless, on or before 90 days from the date this order is entered, 15 the Office of the Attorney General will file the report form attached to this order regarding 16 the results of the 90-day stay, even if a stipulation for dismissal is entered prior to the end 17 of the 90-day stay. If the parties proceed with this action, the Court will then issue an 18 order setting a date for Defendants to file an answer or other response. Following the 19 filing of an answer, the Court will issue a scheduling order setting discovery and 20 dispositive motion deadlines. 21 It is further ordered that “settlement” may or may not include payment of money 22 damages. It also may or may not include an agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s issues 23 differently. A compromise agreement is one in which neither party is completely satisfied 24 with the result, but both have given something up and both have obtained something in 25 return. 26 It is further ordered that if the case does not settle, Plaintiff will be required to pay 27 the full $350.00 filing fee. This fee cannot be waived, and the fee cannot be refunded 28 once the Court enters an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 1 pauperis. If Plaintiff is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, the fee will be paid in 2 installments from his prison trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). If Plaintiff is not allowed 3 to proceed in forma pauperis, the $350.00 will be due immediately. 4 It is further ordered that if any party seeks to have this case excluded from the 5 inmate mediation program, that party will file a “motion to exclude case from mediation” 6 on or before 21 days from the date of this order. The responding party will have 7 days 7 to file a response. No reply will be filed. Thereafter, the Court will issue an order, set the 8 matter for hearing, or both. 9 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will electronically serve a copy of 10 this order and a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1) on the Office of the Attorney 11 General of the State of Nevada, by adding the Attorney General of the State of Nevada 12 to the docket sheet. This does not indicate acceptance of service. 13 It is further ordered that the Attorney General’s Office will advise the Court within 14 21 days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will enter a limited notice of 15 appearance on behalf of Defendants for the purpose of settlement. No defenses or 16 objections, including lack of service, will be waived as a result of the filing of the limited 17 notice of appearance. 18 19 DATED THIS __2_9__ day of June 2021. 20

21 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge United States District Court 22

24 25 26 27 28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JORGE TRUJILLO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01643-GMN-VCF 4 Plaintiff REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 RE: RESULTS OF 90-DAY STAY v. 6 H. LANDSMAN et al., 7 Defendants 8 NOTE: ONLY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL FILE THIS FORM. 9 THE INMATE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT FILE THIS FORM.

10 On ________________ [the date of the issuance of the screening order], the Court 11 issued its screening order stating that it had conducted its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and that certain specified claims in this case would proceed. The Court ordered 12 the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to file a report ninety (90) days after the date of the entry of the Court’s screening order to indicate the status of the case 13 at the end of the 90-day stay. By filing this form, the Office of the Attorney General hereby 14 complies. 15 REPORT FORM [Identify which of the following two situations (identified in bold type) describes the case, 16 and follow the instructions corresponding to the proper statement.]

17 Situation One: Mediated Case: The case was assigned to mediation by a court- appointed mediator during the 90-day stay. [If this statement is accurate, check ONE 18 of the six statements below and fill in any additional information as required, then proceed to the signature block.] 19 ____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on 20 _______________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have reached a settlement (even if paperwork to memorialize the settlement 21 remains to be completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous stipulation of 22 dismissal or a motion requesting that the Court continue the stay in the case until a specified date upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.) 23 ____ A mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held on 24 ________________ [enter date], and as of this date, the parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General therefore informs 25 the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.

26 ____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 90-day stay, but the parties have nevertheless settled the case. (If this box 27 is checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file a contemporaneous stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the 28 Court continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they will file a stipulation of dismissal.) 1 ____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 2 90-day stay, but one is currently scheduled for ________________ [enter date]. 3 ____ No mediation session with a court-appointed mediator was held during the 4 90-day stay, and as of this date, no date certain has been scheduled for such a session. 5 ____ None of the above five statements describes the status of this case. 6 Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the 7 status of this case.

8 Situation Two: Informal Settlement Discussions Case: The case was NOT assigned to mediation with a court-appointed mediator during the 90-day stay; rather, the 9 parties were encouraged to engage in informal settlement negotiations. [If this statement is accurate, check ONE of the four statements below and fill in any additional 10 information as required, then proceed to the signature block.]

11 ____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties have reached a settlement (even if the paperwork to memorialize 12 the settlement remains to be completed). (If this box is checked, the parties are on notice that they must SEPARATELY file either a contemporaneous 13 stipulation of dismissal or a motion requesting that the Court continue the stay in this case until a specified date upon which they will file a stipulation 14 of dismissal.)

15 ____ The parties engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney General 16 therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.

17 ____ The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions and as of this date, the parties have not reached a settlement. The Office of the Attorney 18 General therefore informs the Court of its intent to proceed with this action.

19 ____ None of the above three statements fully describes the status of this case. 20 Contemporaneously with the filing of this report, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada is filing a separate document detailing the 21 status of this case.

22 Submitted this _______ day of __________________, ______ by:

23 Attorney Name: _______________________ _________________________ 24 Print Signature

25 Address: ______________________ Phone: 26 ___________________________ 27 ______________________ Email: 28