CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed a pro se First Amended Complaint (FAC) for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a host of grievances against medical personnel at SVSP. Among other things, plaintiff alleges that defendants deprived him of adequate treatment for hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and improperly cancelled various ADA and medical accommodations. Plaintiff claims that defendants' actions and omissions amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under § 1983 and assault and battery under California law.
Per order filed on June 13, 2013, the Court found that, liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations appear to state a cognizable § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the following SVSP defendants: Doctors Michael C. Sepulveda, Richard B. Mack, Kim Kumar, Darren Bright and Sammit Reed, and Nurse Eric Golden. The Court also found that plaintiff's allegations appear to state a cognizable California state law claim for medical negligence against the same defendants pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve them.
Defendants Sepulveda, Mack, Kumar and Reed (Defendants)
Plaintiff moves for preliminary injunctive relief, asking the Court to prohibit defendants from "withholding effective pain . . . medication" by requiring him to take medications in "crush and float" form, to transfer plaintiff to a medical facility, to prohibit defendants from making erroneous medical judgments, to transfer plaintiff to a single cell, and to order defendants to provide plaintiff with a CAT scan. Dkt. #51 at 1-2. Defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply, but addressed the opposition in his other filings.
The allegations in plaintiff's FAC can be grouped into eleven separate medical grievances:
Plaintiff alleges that defendants have deprived him of effective eye wear since 2009 and, as a result, his vision has drastically worsened. FAC ¶ 24.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mack cancelled delivery of pain medications to his cell.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied him single cell status after another doctor recommended that plaintiff be placed in a single cell to avoid confrontations with other inmates.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied him a CAT scan after it was recommended by another doctor.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied another doctor's recommendation to transfer plaintiff to a medical facility for a "higher level of care."
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mack denied him adequate hypertension medication by prescribing plaintiff medication that he could not take due to a past adverse reaction and side effects.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mack cancelled all of his pain medications on December 29, 2011.
Plaintiff alleges that at different times Drs. Mack, Sepulveda, Bright and Kumar denied him cell-front feeding of his meals.
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied adequate medication to treat his GERD.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Kumar allowed Dr. Mack to prescribe medications for plaintiff to be administered in a "crushed" form rather than in a pill form, although crushed medications have caused plaintiff problems in the past and are not as effective as in pill form.
Plaintiff alleges that in January 2010, Drs. Sepulveda and Bright arbitrarily cancelled all of plaintiff's ADA and medical chronos, including chronos for "ADA shower," "ADA laundry exchange," "ADA and medically needed cell-feeding," "ADA dietary recommendation," "ADA tens unit supplies," "ADA conservative back brace," and "ADA wheelchair lift."
Defendants move to dismiss the first eight of plaintiff's eleven alleged medical grievances under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that they fail to state a claim for deliberate indifference under § 1983 and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. They also move to dismiss plaintiff's state law medical negligence claim as to all eleven alleged medical grievances for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act. Defendants further move to dismiss plaintiff's official capacity and punitive damages claims.
Dismissal is proper where the complaint fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the `grounds' of his `entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level."
The court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, but it need not accept as true "legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot be reasonably drawn from the facts alleged."
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.
Negligence alone does not warrant liability under the Eighth Amendment.
A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.
In order to establish a claim for damages against an individual prison official under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts showing that the specific prison official's deliberate indifference was the "actual and proximate cause" of the deprivation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants deprived him of "effective eye wear for over five years" and, as a result, his "vision has drastically worsened." FAC ¶ 24. Plaintiff specifically adds that in January 2010 Drs. Sepulveda and Bright denied him necessary eye glasses, and that in 2011 Dr. Kumar did the same.
Plaintiff alleges that on November 17, 2011, Nurse Golden would not deliver pain medications to plaintiff's cell because Dr. Mack cancelled the delivery on account of plaintiff not being able to get up "fast enough to get the meds." FAC ¶ 28. Although it clearly is more convenient for plaintiff to have medications brought to his cell than to have to get them from the infirmary or "pill line," as most other inmates do, there is no indication whatsoever that delivery of medication to plaintiff's cell was medically necessary. Dr. Mack's decision to cancel delivery of pain medication to plaintiff's cell on account of plaintiff's slow response time may amount to a medical negligence claim, but it does not amount to a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim under § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied him single cell status after another doctor recommended that plaintiff be placed in a single cell to avoid confrontations with other inmates. FAC ¶ 18. Plaintiff adds that this allowed "custody management personnel to continue . . . to set up [] cell fights" between plaintiff and other inmates.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied him a CAT scan of his "thoracic spine" recommended by another doctor. FAC ¶ 16. But a mere difference of medical opinion as to whether a CAT scan was in order is not enough to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sepulveda denied another doctor's recommendation that plaintiff "be transferred to a medical facility for a higher level of care." FAC ¶ 20. But again, a mere difference of medical opinion as to whether a transfer to a medical facility was necessary is not enough to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mack was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs when he prescribed him medication that plaintiff's cardiologist had documented plaintiff could not take due to "severe adverse reaction" and "past side effects." FAC ¶ 6. Plaintiff adds that the cardiologist specifically noted that plaintiff should be placed on "Clonidine patch" or an "alternative to the orange pills" because plaintiff had "suffered [a] severe adverse reaction to [the orange pills] in the past."
Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Dr. Mack because they permit the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mack improperly cancelled "all my pain meds" on December 29, 2011. FAC ¶ 29. Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to allege any facts linking any other doctor defendant to the cancellation of plaintiff's pain medication. The Court agrees and finds that plaintiff states no claim regarding denial of pain medication as to any defendant other than Dr. Mack. But as to Dr. Mack, plaintiff's brief allegation is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under § 1983 because, read in the context of the rest of the FAC, the allegation is sufficient for the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Dr. Mack cancelled all of plaintiff's pain medications despite knowing that he needed some form of pain medication.
Plaintiff alleges that at different times defendant doctors have denied his requests for cell-front feeding, i.e., that his food be delivered to his cell. FAC ¶¶ 15, 19, 28. Although it must be more convenient for plaintiff to have his meals delivered to his cell than to have to go eat them in the dining hall, as most other inmates do, there is no indication whatsoever that delivery of plaintiff's meals to his cell was medically necessary. Plaintiff's mere disagreement with "prison medical authorities regarding [medical accommodations] does not give rise to a § 1983 claim."
In sum, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim under § 1983 is granted as to the following medical grievances — denial of delivery of pain medication to plaintiff's cell, denial of single cell status, denial of CAT scan, denial of transfer to a medical facility, denial of pain medication as to all defendants other than Dr. Mack and denial of cell feeding — and denied as to the following grievances — denial of effective eye wear, denial of adequate hypertension medication and denial of pain medication as to Dr. Mack.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's state law medical negligence claim as to all eleven alleged medical grievances for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act and file a claim with the California Victim's Compensation Government Claim Board (VCGCB). Under California law, the filing of a tort claim in the time and manner prescribed by state law is a prerequisite to the filing of a lawsuit against any state employee or entity. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 905.2, 911.2, 945.4, 950.2;
The Court takes judicial notice that an authorized custodian of records for the VCGCB conducted a search of the VCGCB's records from February 2007 through December 2013 and found that plaintiff never filed a claim related to his instant causes of action against defendants. Req. for Judicial Notice (dkt. #63) at 2.
Defendants seek dismissal of plaintiff's § 1983 damages claim against them in their official capacities and of plaintiff's § 1983 claim for punitive damages. Dismissal is in order as to both § 1983 damages claims.
It is well established that, absent consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens or citizens of any foreign state.
Punitive damages may be awarded in a § 1983 suit only "when defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others."
Defendants move for summary judgment under Rule 56 on the last three of plaintiff's eleven alleged medical grievances on the ground that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.
"The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing `any suit challenging prison conditions,' including, but not limited to, suits under § 1983."
The PLRA amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although once within the discretion of the district court, exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is now mandatory.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). It also provides them the right to file appeals alleging misconduct by correctional officers and/or officials.
Defendants properly raise nonexhaustion in a motion for summary judgment and argue that CDCR records show that plaintiff did not exhaust available administrative remedies as to the last three of his eleven medical grievances: (1) denial of adequate GERD medication, (2) prescription for crushed form of medication, and (3) cancellation of ADA and medical chronos. In support, defendants submit declarations from two CDCR appeal process employees, along with extensive records from the administrative appeals process, corroborating their claim of nonexhaustion.
Defendants have met their burden of showing that there was an available administrative remedy as to the three medical grievances above and that plaintiff did not exhaust that remedy.
Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from requiring him to take medications in "crush and float" form, which he claims renders his medications ineffective, and from making improper medical judgments about his conditions. He also asks the Court to provide him with a CAT scan, single cell status and a transfer to a medical facility.
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."
Plaintiff does not establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits on the underlying claims to his motion for preliminary injunctive relief — prescription for crushed form of medication, denial of CAT scan, denial of single cell status, and denial of transfer to a medical facility. All of these claims were addressed in connection with defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment above and none survived. Plaintiff's remaining claim in this action is a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on the following three medical grievances — denial of effective eye wear, denial of adequate hypertension medication and denial of pain medication by Dr. Mack. A preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from prescribing plaintiff medication in crushed and float form, and compelling defendants to grant plaintiff a CAT scan, single cell status and a transfer to a medical facility, must be denied for lack of showing of likelihood of success on the merits.
A preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from making improper medical judgments about plaintiff's medical conditions is not in order either. Although plaintiff takes issue with many of the medical judgments made by his medical providers, he sets forth no specific facts or evidence showing that those judgments were medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that they were made in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff's health.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment (docket #61) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim under § 1983 is granted as to the following medical grievances — denial of delivery of pain medication to plaintiff's cell, denial of single cell status, denial of CAT scan, denial of transfer to a medical facility, denial of pain medication as to all defendants other than Dr. Mack and denial of cell feeding — and denied as to the following medical grievances — denial of effective eye wear, denial of adequate hypertension medication and denial of pain medication as to Dr. Mack. The motion to dismiss is also granted as to plaintiff's state law medical negligence claim for failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act, and as to plaintiff's § 1983 damages claim against defendants in their official capacities and plaintiff's § 1983 claim for punitive damages. The motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as to plaintiff's last three medical grievances — denial of adequate GERD medication, prescription for crushed form of medication and cancellation of ADA and medical chronos — is granted.
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (dkt. #51) and motion for recusal of the state attorney general's office (dk. #83) are DENIED.
This action will proceed as to plaintiff's § 1983 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim based on the following three medical grievances — denial of effective eye wear, denial of adequate hypertension medication and denial of pain medication as to Dr. Mack — only. In order to expedite this matter, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment on the remaining § 1983 claims within sixty days of this order. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or notice of non-opposition within twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and defendants shall file a reply to any opposition within fourteen days thereafter.
The clerk shall terminate the motions in docket numbers 51, 61 and 83.
SO ORDERED.
