Millare v. Gonzales et al, No. 3:2016cv00487 - Document 131 (S.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 105 Defendant G. Wiley's Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant Wiley without leave to amend. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment claims against Def endant Wiley with leave to amend. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action and amend his First and Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Wiley in accordance with this Order, he must file an amended complaint within 45 days from the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/21/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Millare v. Gonzales et al Doc. 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 15 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT G. WILEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS MORIANO MILLARE, CDCR #J-19886, vs. L. GONZALES, et al., [Doc. No. 105] Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Moriano Millare, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 19 civil rights action against correctional, medical, and inmate appeals officials at Richard J. 20 Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff brings five claims 21 against Defendant G. Wiley, a nurse practitioner at RJD, for violations of his First and 22 Eighth Amendment rights, as well as state law.1 Wiley moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s 23 claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 105. Plaintiff 24 filed a response in opposition to Wiley’s motion, to which Wiley replied. See Doc. Nos. 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff reached a settlement of his claims against the other defendants in this action. See Doc. No. 108. As such, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as to those defendants. See Doc. Nos. 117, 119, 127. Plaintiff’s only remaining claims in this action are the claims he brings against Defendant Wiley. 1 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS Dockets.Justia.com 1 128, 129. The Court took Wiley’s motion under submission on the written briefs and 2 without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth 3 below, the Court GRANTS Wiley’s motion. 4 BACKGROUND2 5 Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events beginning in November 2013 and continuing 6 through 2015. As relevant to this motion, on June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an inmate 7 health care appeal against former-defendant Dr. G. Casian, alleging that Dr. Casian 8 forced Plaintiff “to endure chronic itch five (5) months without treatment, treating the 9 plaintiff with naproxen after being informed it had no effect on plaintiff’s pain . . . .” 10 Complaint ¶ 65 (citing Ex. “I”). Plaintiff further alleges that on July 23, 2014, Defendant 11 Wiley, a nurse practitioner, interviewed him for the second level of review of his health 12 care appeal against Dr. Casian. Plaintiff claims that when he entered the office, Wiley 13 ordered him to stop walking and demanded that Plaintiff walk the rest of the way through 14 the office on his “tip toes.” Id. ¶ 82. When Plaintiff refused, Wiley instructed Plaintiff to 15 walk on his heels. Plaintiff stood still and advised Wiley that the instructions were 16 confusing. Wiley told Plaintiff to close his eyes, walked behind Plaintiff, and shoved him 17 “in the back knocking the plaintiff off balance.” Id. ¶ 84. When Plaintiff asked Wiley 18 what she was doing, Wiley told Plaintiff that if he did not cooperate she would cancel his 19 health care appeal against Dr. Casian. 20 According to Plaintiff, Wiley then yelled that Plaintiff’s “breath stinks . . . 21 followed by wild laughter.” Id. ¶ 85. Plaintiff claims that he then tried to ask Wiley 22 questions concerning his health care appeal, and she responded by telling Plaintiff to 23 “shut up and stated she was going to throw up followed by even louder laughter. 24 25 26 27 28 2 This description of events is taken from Plaintiff’s complaint and is not to be construed as findings of fact by the Court. However, because this case comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and must also construe the complaint, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 2 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 Defendant Wiley told the plaintiff she was going to order him diapers and then asked 2 Officer Krawford for permission to give the plaintiff tic tacs,” which Plaintiff advised 3 Wiley he could not eat because he is Muslim. Id. ¶ 85-86. Wiley told Plaintiff to 4 “change your religion because your breath stinks.” Id. ¶ 87. Defendant Wiley provided 5 Plaintiff with paperwork regarding the medication triamcinolone, however, Plaintiff 6 alleges he never received the actual medication. Ultimately, Plaintiff’s health care appeal 7 against Dr. Casian was denied at the second level of review. On August 13, 2014, 8 Plaintiff filed a health care appeal against Defendant Wiley regarding her treatment of 9 Plaintiff during the July 23, 2014 interview. 10 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings First Amendment retaliation and Eighth 11 Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendant Wiley. Plaintiff also brings 12 three state law claims against all named defendants, including Wiley. 13 14 15 DISCUSSION 1. Legal Standard A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the 16 sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 17 Plaintiffs must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 19 plausibility standard thus demands more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 20 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Ashcroft v. 21 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Instead, the complaint “must contain allegations of 22 underlying facts sufficient to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend 23 itself effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). 24 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept as true 25 all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn 26 from them, and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 27 Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Karam v. City 28 of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). The court need not take legal 3 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 conclusions as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. 2 Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Similarly, “conclusory 3 allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to 4 dismiss.” Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). 5 Where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court must construe the 6 pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los 7 Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of liberal construction 8 is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 9 (9th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, the court must give a pro se litigant leave to amend his 10 complaint “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 11 allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 12 (quotation omitted) (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir. 1987)). Thus, 13 before a pro se civil rights complaint may be dismissed, the court must provide the 14 plaintiff with a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 15 623-24. But where amendment of a pro se litigant’s complaint would be futile, denial of 16 leave to amend is appropriate. See James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 18 2. First Amendment Claim Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wiley retaliated against him in violation of his 19 First Amendment right to file inmate appeals when she threatened to cancel Plaintiff’s 20 health care appeal against Dr. Casian. 21 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails 22 five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against 23 an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 24 chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 25 reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 26 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted) (citing Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 27 (9th Cir. 2000), Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994)). Conduct 28 protected by the First Amendment includes communications that are “part of the 4 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 grievance process.” Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that he has failed to allege a 3 plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Wiley. Even if the Court 4 liberally construes Plaintiff’s allegations, he sets forth insufficient facts to support all the 5 necessary elements of a retaliation claim. According to the complaint, Defendant Wiley 6 threatened to cancel his health care appeal against Dr. Casian not because of Plaintiff’s 7 protected conduct, but because he failed to cooperate with her instructions during the 8 interview. Moreover, Plaintiff includes only a bare legal conclusion in his complaint that 9 Defendant Wiley’s actions had “chilling effects” that “did not advance any legitimate 10 penological goals.” Complaint ¶ 175. Plaintiff’s substantive allegations demonstrate the 11 opposite, that his exercise of the right to submit inmate appeals was not chilled. Plaintiff 12 submitted multiple inmate appeals after his interview with Defendant Wiley, including an 13 appeal based on his interaction with her during the July 23, 2014 interview. See Pl. Ex. 14 P. 15 In sum, Plaintiff has filed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible First 16 Amendment claim against Defendant Wiley and his claim is subject to dismissal. 17 18 3. Eighth Amendment Claim Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Wiley violated his Eighth Amendment right to 19 adequate medical care by acting deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical 20 needs, to wit, a chronic skin infection. 21 The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment 22 and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity 23 and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 24 404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir. 1968)). “[D]eliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 25 illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983.” Id. at 105. A prison official 26 violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the objective 27 requirement that the deprivation is “sufficiently serious,” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 28 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); and (2) the 5 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 subjective requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” 2 Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298). 3 The objective requirement that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious” is met 4 where the prison official’s act or omission results in the denial of “the minimal civilized 5 measure of life’s necessities.” Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 6 (1981)). A serious medical need is shown by alleging that the failure to treat the 7 plaintiff’s condition could result in further significant injury, or the unnecessary and 8 wanton infliction of pain. Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009) 9 (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Court finds Plaintiff 10 alleges specific facts sufficient to satisfy the objective requirement for a serious medical 11 need. 12 The subjective requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently culpable state 13 of mind” is met where the prison official acts with “deliberate indifference” to inmate 14 health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303). A 15 deliberately indifferent response by the defendant is shown by a purposeful act or failure 16 to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the 17 indifference. Conn, 572 F.3d at 1055. In order to constitute deliberate indifference, there 18 must be an objective risk of harm and the defendant must have subjective awareness of 19 that harm. Id. A difference of medical opinion between the inmate and prison medical 20 authorities regarding a diagnosis and/or treatment is insufficient to prove deliberate 21 indifference. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th 22 Cir. 1981) (citing Mayfield v. Craven, 433 F.2d 873, 873 (9th Cir. 1970). Moreover, 23 inadequate treatment due to malpractice, or even gross negligence, is not enough to 24 establish deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wood v. Housewright, 900 25 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Plaintiff’s chief complaint is that he did not receive the medical treatment he 27 preferred, and that Defendant Wiley shoved, taunted, and belittled him during her 28 examination. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual content to “allow 6 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 the court to draw a reasonable inference” of deliberate indifference by Defendant Wiley. 2 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To establish that Wiley’s actions amounted to deliberate 3 indifference, Plaintiff must allege that the course of treatment Wiley “chose was 4 medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that she “chose this course in 5 conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health.” Jackson, 90 F.3d at 6 332. In other words, Plaintiff must allege “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 7 prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” 8 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). 9 While the statements attributed to Defendant Wiley by Plaintiff may be “textbook 10 example[s] of the state of mind required to violate the Eighth Amendment,” Snow v. 11 McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruled in part on other grounds by 12 Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014), Plaintiff does not allege that Wiley’s 13 treatment decisions were medically unacceptable. Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332. According to 14 Plaintiff, Wiley examined him, concluded he suffered from a skin condition, prescribed 15 Plaintiff topical anti-itch medication, and provided him with instructions for self- 16 administering the medication. Wiley also granted Plaintiff’s request for a CT scan. The 17 fact that Defendant Wiley did not personally dispense the medication, or grant Plaintiff’s 18 additional requests, such as various types of support braces and a lower bunk chrono, 19 does not establish deliberate indifference. A difference of medical opinion between the 20 inmate and the medical official regarding treatment is insufficient to establish deliberate 21 indifference. Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1344. Moreover, the Constitution does not require 22 that prisoners be given every medical treatment they desire. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 23 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that Defendant 24 Wiley’s examination and treatment were medically unacceptable, or that Defendant 25 Wiley acted in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s serious medical need. 26 27 28 4. State Law Claims Plaintiff also brings several claims against Defendant Wiley arising under California state law, including claims for “Violation of State Law Government Code 7 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS 1 19572(f) Dishonesty,” “Violation of State Law Penal Code Section 5058,” and “Violation 2 of State Law Department of Corrections Operation Manual.” Complaint at 67-70.3 3 Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of these claims. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Wiley’s motion to dismiss. 6 The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Wiley without 7 leave to amend. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First and Eighth Amendment claims 8 against Defendant Wiley with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 9 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation omitted) (citing Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 10 1447 (9th Cir. 1987)) (court must give pro se litigant leave to amend his claim “unless it 11 determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other 12 facts.”). 13 If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action and amend his First and Eighth Amendment 14 claims against Defendant Wiley in accordance with this Order, he must file an amended 15 complaint within forty-five (45) days from the date this Order is filed. Plaintiff may 16 amend only to cure the deficiencies identified in this Order with respect to his First and 17 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Wiley. Plaintiff may not add any new 18 claims or parties. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: December 21, 2017 21 22 _______________________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Citation refers to the pagination assigned by the document’s author. 8 3:16-cv-0487-MMA-NLS
]]>
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.
