(PC) Garcia v. Balagso et al, No. 1:2014cv00999 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendant's 27 Motion to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/22/16. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEJANDRO GARCIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 No. 1:14-cv-00999 LJO DLB PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Document 27) PURDY, THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 19 2, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and it was 20 transferred to this Court on June 24, 2014. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended 21 Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Purdy. Defendant Purdy filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 23 Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 18, 2016. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 6, 2016, and 24 Defendant Purdy filed a reply on June 9, 2016. The motion is ready for decision pursuant to 25 Local Rule 230(l). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 DISCUSSION A. 3 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2013, he and his cellmate told Officers Corona and 4 Flores that his blood sugar was a little low and that he wanted to see medical. The officers called 5 and were told that medical was not there, that Plaintiff would be seen later, and that Plaintiff 6 should stop complaining or he’d receive a CDCR 115. At that time, Plaintiff had a seizure. His 7 cellmate gave him jellies to raise his blood sugar level and called “man down.” ECF No. 21, at 3. 8 Once again, the officers called medical and told medical that Plaintiff had a seizure. In response, 9 Plaintiff was told to stop complaining. 10 On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff asked Defendant why she and other medical staff refused 11 to go and treat Plaintiff for low blood sugar. Defendant told him that it was about to be shift 12 change, and they were not going to deal with him. Defendant began to laugh. Plaintiff told 13 Defendant that his life is not a joke and she tried to apologize. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s neglect caused him physical and mental harm. 14 15 B. LEGAL STANDARD 16 A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a 17 claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 18 sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 19 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 20 1762 (2012). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court’s review is generally limited to the operative 21 pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. 22 Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 23 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). 24 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 25 accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 26 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 27 1955, 1964-65 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. 28 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the factual 2 1 allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, Daniels- 2 Hall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 3 1153 (9th Cir. 2000), and in this Circuit, pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings 4 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 5 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva v. Di 6 Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 7 C. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was screened and the Court determined it stated a 8 9 SCREENING claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 908 10 (“Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915A ‘incorporates the familiar standard applied 11 in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).’”) 12 (quoting Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) 13 (section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening standard is the same as Rule 12(b)(6) standard). Defendant’s 14 acknowledgement that the complaint was screened is noted; however, she presents no arguments 15 which persuade the Court it erred in determining that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim was 16 cognizable or that any other grounds justifying relief from the screening order exist. See Ingle v. 17 Circuit City, 408 F.3d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A district court abuses its discretion in applying 18 the law of the case doctrine only if (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening 19 change in the law occurred; (3) the evidence on remand was substantially different; (4) other 20 changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.”). As explained 21 below, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to allow him to proceed past the pleading stage. 22 D. DISCUSSION 23 The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution is violated when a prison 24 official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 25 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 26 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 27 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 28 failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 3 1 wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 2 indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 3 4 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts 5 from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that 6 person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a 7 prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated 8 the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of 9 Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). 10 Defendant first argues that Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Purdy had actual 11 knowledge of a substantial risk of harm. Defendant acknowledges that in the July 17, 2015, 12 screening order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Purdy told him that she 13 didn’t want to deal with him at shift change was sufficient to demonstrate knowledge. Defendant 14 disagrees with that finding, contending that Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Purdy knew 15 that he was exhibiting signs of illness, or that she could have prevented harm by providing 16 immediate assistance. As explained above, Plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally, and the Court 17 18 “‘may only dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that 19 the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” 20 Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (quoting Silva, 658 F.3d at 1101). Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as 21 true, Silva, 658 F.3d at 1105, indicate that (1) Defendant Purdy’s acknowledgment that she did 22 not want to deal with him because of a shift change shows that she knew of his medical condition 23 but failed to assist; and (2) Plaintiff’s medical condition worsened as a result. Plaintiff must be 24 afforded the benefit of any doubt, Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42, and his allegations, although 25 requiring an inference, are sufficient to permit him to at least proceed past the pleading stage. 26 Insofar as Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations show nothing more than 27 negligence, the argument is foreclosed by the above findings. 28 /// 4 1 2 3 E. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendant Purdy’s motion to dismiss, filed on March 18, 2016, be DENIED. 4 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 6 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 7 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 9 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Dennis July 22, 2016 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
