(PC) Maestas v. RCCC Medical Staff, No. 2:2021cv01419 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/13/2023 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta and Magistrate Judge Deborah Ba rnes for all further proceedings. It is further RECOMMENDED that the 24 Third Amended Complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections due within 30 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-1419 DJC DB (PC). (Lopez, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY MAESTAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-01419 DB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RCCC MEDICAL STAFF, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 19 1983. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is before the court for screening. (ECF No. 24.) For the 20 reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without further leave to 21 amend for failure to state a claim. 22 I. Screening Requirement and Pleading Standard 23 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 24 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal... fails to state 25 a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 26 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 27 pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 28 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 1 1 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 3 matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. 4 II. 5 Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges he received improper medical or mental health care in violation of the 6 Eighth Amendment from the medical staff at RCCC. (ECF No. 24 at 3.) Plaintiff needed to be in 7 a real hospital for emergency back surgery but was denied emergency care. (Id.) Plaintiff was 8 given aspirin and told to lie down. (Id.) The doctors and nurses at RCCC were planning to do 9 surgery and gave plaintiff 12 shots in the back to try to numb him. (Id. at 3-4.) It appears plaintiff 10 is alleging there were problems during the procedure performed at RCCC. (See id. at 4.) Finally, 11 plaintiff was taken to a real hospital where surgery was performed. (Id.) Plaintiff was recovering 12 for six months and suffered a lot of pain in his middle back. (Id. at 4-5) Plaintiff is disabled and 13 has limited mobility and the doctors and nurses at RCCC committed misconduct in putting him 14 through unnecessary pain and giving him no accommodations (Id. at 5.) 15 Plaintiff names RCCC medical staff - nurses and doctors - as the sole defendant in the 16 third amended complaint. He seeks monetary damages. 17 III. 18 Discussion Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 19 immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. 20 Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). To state a claim under § 1983, a 21 plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 22 United States was violated and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 23 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 24 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). 25 Plaintiff seeks to hold the RCCC medical staff collectively liable under the Eighth 26 Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A prisoner seeking relief for 27 an Eighth Amendment violation must show that the defendant official acted with deliberate 28 indifference to a threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 2 1 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). A prison official is liable for deliberate indifference if the 2 official “knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by 3 failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 4 As plaintiff was previously advised, in order to bring an individual capacity claim under 5 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing that each defendant personally participated 6 in the deprivation of his rights. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). (See 7 ECF No. 18 at 3.) In addition, as plaintiff was previously advised, the court cannot serve a 8 complaint against only unknown or unnamed individual defendants. (See id. at 5.) 9 Like the prior complaints, the third amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim 10 under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff cannot proceed against RCCC medical staff, or its doctors 11 and nurses, collectively. Generic identifiers such as “medical staff” or “doctors and nurses” do 12 not suffice to link a specific defendant to any offending actions. Allegations directed to “medical 13 staff,” or “doctors and nurses,” also fail to put any individual defendants on notice of plaintiff’s 14 claims against them. See generally Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (a 15 complaint must give fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims). 16 Plaintiff was also previously advised of the requirements to state a cognizable municipal 17 liability claim. (ECF No. 18 at 4-5.) To any extent plaintiff would seek to proceed against the 18 County of Sacramento for the actions of the RCCC medical staff or its doctors and nurses, the 19 third amended complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing the 20 County’s policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional injury. See Monell v. Dept. of Social 21 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Conclusory allegations such as there being “tons of complaints” and 22 that the staff provides inadequate care (e.g., ECF No. 24 at 6) do not suffice to state a claim. See 23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (conclusory statements do not suffice to state a claim). 24 Because the third amended complaint alleges plaintiff is disabled and received no 25 accommodations, the court considers whether plaintiff has stated a claim under the Americans 26 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). “To state a claim of disability discrimination under Title II of the 27 ADA, the plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) the plaintiff is an individual with a disability, 28 (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public 3 1 entity’s services, programs, or activities, (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from participation in 2 or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise 3 discriminated against by the public entity, and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 4 discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's disability.” Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 5 (9th Cir. 2002); Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on 6 denial of reh’g (Oct. 11, 2001); 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 7 Plaintiff does not set forth any factual allegations showing he was denied benefits because 8 of a disability. Conclusory allegations that plaintiff is disabled and that he received no 9 accommodations do not state a claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (a pleading must be more than 10 an “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). 11 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 12 opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See 13 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). “A district court may deny leave to amend 14 when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013). In 15 this case, plaintiff has received notice of the deficiencies in each of his complaints and has 16 received three opportunities to amend. It now plainly appears that plaintiff is unable to allege 17 facts to state a cognizable claim. Thus, granting further leave to amend would be futile. 18 IV. 19 20 Conclusion In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 21 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 22 1. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 24) be dismissed without further leave to 23 amend for failure to state a claim; and 24 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 30 days after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 28 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 4 1 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 3 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Dated: December 13, 2023 5 6 7 DLB7 maes1419.scrn3ac.fr 8 9 10 11 12 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.
