(PC) Healy v. Martel et al, No. 2:2017cv01671 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/15/2018 DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms and RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's claims against defendants Lewis, Church, Singh, Ikegbu, or Malakkla be dismissed without leave to amend and Plaintiff's claims against defendant Williams for the treatment of his shoulder injury (claim 4) be dismissed without leave to amend. Service is appropriate for Adams, Naseer, Williams, and Yasmeen. Clerk to send plaintiff: 1 Summons, 4 USM-285 Forms with instruction sheet, and 1 copy of the Amended Complaint filed on 4/2/2018. Plaintiff to complete the Notice of Submission of Documents and submit with service documents within 30 days from the date of this order. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF HEALY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1671 KJM DB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MARTY MARTEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 19 needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended 20 complaint (“SAC”) for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds service of the 21 SAC appropriate for defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, Williams, and Adams. In addition, the court 22 recommends dismissal of defendants Lewis, Church, Singh, Ikegbu, and Malakkla. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on August 11, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On screening, the 24 25 court found plaintiff stated some potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate 26 indifference claims against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and Williams. (ECF No. 7.) However, 27 the court found plaintiff failed to state claims against the remaining eight defendants. Those 28 //// 1 1 defendants were dismissed and plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 2 On January 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 10.) The 3 court found plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Yasmeen, 4 Naseer, Williams, and Adams but failed to state claims against defendants Lewis, Church, Singh, 5 Ikegbu, or Malakkla. (Feb. 27, 2018 Order (ECF No. 12).) Plaintiff was again given the 6 opportunity to file an amended complaint and, he did so. (SAC (ECF No. 13).) 7 SCREENING 8 The court has set out the standards for screening complaints under § 1983 for Eighth 9 Amendment medical claims twice previously and will not repeat them. In sum, to proceed with 10 this action, plaintiff must set out facts showing that he has a serious medical need and showing 11 conduct by each defendant that demonstrates deliberate indifference to that medical need. In the 12 SAC, plaintiff raises the same eight claims he raised in the FAC against the same nine defendants. 13 He adds some new allegations. The court examines each claim below. 14 I. Claim One 15 Plaintiff states that he has been diagnosed with the following problems in his left knee: 16 torn/missing anterior cruciate ligament, torn medial collateral ligament, torn/missing meniscus, 17 and severe degenerative joint disease. He states that knee replacement surgery was recommended 18 in the past. Plaintiff contends that he has discussed his knee pain with defendants Yasmeen and 19 Naseer “extensively” and they have done nothing to repair his knee or alleviate the pain. Plaintiff 20 says he is unable to stand or walk and is in terrible pain. (SAC (ECF No. 13 at 9).) The court 21 finds plaintiff’s allegations minimally sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against 22 defendants Yasmeen and Naseer. 23 II. 24 Claim Two In his second claim, plaintiff states that as a result of a fall in 2005, he has torn tendons in 25 his right foot and ankle. He contends he further injured his right foot in 2016 in a fall. Since 26 then, plaintiff has been unable to support his weight with his right leg and is in terrible pain. He 27 states that he has discussed this with defendants Yasmeen and Naseer many times but they have 28 //// 2 1 refused to “discuss any solutions for the injury or pain.” (SAC (ECF No. 13 at 10).) Again, 2 plaintiff has stated a minimally sufficient claim against defendants Yasmeen and Naseer. 3 III. 4 These claims are identical to claims three and four in the FAC. The court previously found 5 plaintiff stated a potentially cognizable claim regarding his back and neck pain against defendants 6 Yasmeen, Naseer, and Williams (claim three) and a potentially cognizable claim against 7 defendants Yasmeen and Naseer for failure to treat his leg wounds (claim four). (ECF No. 12 at 8 6-8.) 9 10 IV. Claims Three and Four Claim Five Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Yasmeen and Naseer are the same as those stated 11 in his first amended complaint. The court previously found these allegations sufficient to state 12 potentially cognizable claims against these defendants with respect to their treatment of plaintiff’s 13 shoulder injury. (ECF No. 12 at 8-9.) Plaintiff also makes allegations here against defendant 14 Williams. He states that Williams was aware of his likely rotator cuff tear and, after he had 15 plaintiff perform range of motion movements, lied in the report he made about plaintiff’s abilities. 16 Plaintiff contends that Williams’ report contributes to doctors’ decisions to deny him shoulder 17 surgery. (See SAC (ECF No. 13 at 14).) 18 Even taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, he fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim 19 against defendant Williams. Even if Williams misrepresented plaintiff’s abilities in his report, 20 this is insufficient to show he was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs. Plaintiff 21 does not allege that Williams personally denied him treatment, provided unacceptable medical 22 care, or knew that his report would cause plaintiff to receive unacceptable medical care. 23 Generally, prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected right to be free from 24 inaccurate information being placed in their files. See Davis v. Paramo, No. 16cv689 25 BEN(JMA), 2017 WL 2578747, at *14 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2017) (no independent right to 26 accurate medical record), rep. and reco. adopted, 2017 WL 2959170 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2017); cf. 27 Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1987) (re prisoner’s central file); Alvarez v. 28 Horel, No. C 06-5631 SBA(PR), 2009 WL 1370895, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (same). 3 1 Plaintiff’s claim against Williams for the treatment of his shoulder should be dismissed. 2 V. Claims Six, Seven, and Eight Plaintiff’s claims six, seven, and eight are identical to his prior claims. The court 3 4 previously found plaintiff stated potentially cognizable claims (1) that defendants Yasmeen, 5 Naseer, Williams, and Adams failed to provide him appropriate accommodations to allow him to 6 safely use the toilet (claim six); (2) against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and Adams for failing to 7 provide proper treatment for his eye sensitivities (claim seven); and (3) that defendants Yasmeen, 8 Williams, and Naseer failed to properly treat his pain. (ECF No. 12 at 9-11.) 9 VI. 10 11 Conclusion The court finds plaintiff has alleged the following potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims: 12 (1) failure to treat his left knee condition and related pain against defendants Yasmeen and 13 Naseer (claim 1); 14 (2) failure to treat his right foot and ankle condition and related pain against defendants 15 Yasmeen and Naseer (claim 2); 16 (3) failure to treat his back and neck pain against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and 17 Williams (claim 3); 18 (4) failure to treat his leg wounds and infection against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and 19 Adams (claim 4); 20 (5) failure to treat his shoulder injury against defendants Yasmeen and Naseer (claim 5); 21 (6) failure to provide appropriate accommodations to allow plaintiff to use the toilet safely 22 against defendants Yasmeen, Williams, and Naseer (claim 6); 23 (7) failure to treat his eye sensitivities against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and Adams 24 (claim 7); and 25 (8) failure to provide appropriate pain medication against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, 26 and Williams (claim 8). 27 //// 28 //// 4 1 In his SAC, plaintiff makes no attempt to amend his allegations against defendants Lewis, 2 Church, Singh, Ikegbu, or Malakkla. Those allegations are identical to the allegations he made 3 against these defendants in the FAC. The court previously found those allegations insufficient to 4 state cognizable claims. (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons set forth in the February 27 order, the 5 court will recommend dismissal of these defendants. In addition, the court finds herein that 6 plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against defendant Williams regarding the treatment of 7 his shoulder injury. The court will recommend dismissal of this claim as well. 8 In the February 27 order, plaintiff was informed that the SAC was his final opportunity to 9 assert claims against each defendant. (ECF No. 12 at 11.) Plaintiff has amended his complaint 10 sufficiently to allege potentially cognizable claims against some defendants. Plaintiff has made 11 no attempt to amend his complaint to state claims against the other defendants. The court finds 12 no reason to permit further opportunities to amend the complaint. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims against defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, 15 Williams, and Adams as described above. Therefore, service of the second amended 16 complaint is appropriate for these four defendants. 17 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, one summons, an 18 instruction sheet, and a copy of the second amended complaint filed April 2, 2018. 19 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 20 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all the following documents to the 21 court at the same time: 22 a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents; 23 b. One completed summons; 24 c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; and 25 d. Five (5) copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed April 2, 2018. 26 4. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the amended complaint on defendants or 27 request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. Upon receipt of the 28 above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve 5 1 the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without 2 payment of costs. 3 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Lewis, Church, Singh, Ikegbu, or Malakkla be 5 6 7 8 9 dismissed without leave to amend. 2. Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Williams for the treatment of his shoulder injury (claim 4) be dismissed without leave to amend. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 12 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 13 time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 14 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 Dated: June 15, 2018 16 17 18 19 DLB:9 DB/prisoner-civil rights/heal1671.SAC scrn 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF HEALY, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1671 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION MARTY MARTEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________: 19 ____ completed summons form 20 ____ completed USM-285 forms 21 ____ copies of the ___________________ Complaint 22 23 DATED: 24 ________________________________ Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
