Aguilar v. Gibbons et al, No. 2:2010cv01349 - Document 2 (D. Nev. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Gibbons, McDaniel, Brackbill, and Schlager are DISMISSED from this action. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim is DIM SISSED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Howard Skolnik, Robert Bannister, Karen Gedney, Marsha Johns, and John Perry MAY PROCEED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/13/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF. Copy mailed to the attention of Albert G. Peralta. - MMM)

Download PDF
Aguilar v. Gibbons et al Doc. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 GILBERT DEMETRIUS AGUILAR, #56067 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 CONGRESSMAN JAMES GIBBONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:10-cv-01349-KJD-RJJ ORDER 17 This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (docket #1). The court now reviews the complaint. 19 I. Screening Standard 20 Pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), federal courts must dismiss a 21 prisoner’s claims, “if the allegation of poverty is untrue,” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious,” 22 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 23 is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 24 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, 25 therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 26 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a Dockets.Justia.com 1 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson 2 v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is 4 provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under 5 Section 1915(e)(2) when reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or amended complaint. Review under 6 Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 7 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the 8 elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief 9 above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 10 (2007). “The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 11 suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, 12 the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex 13 Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to 14 plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 15 Allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal 16 pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 17 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 18 Cir. 1990). All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte, however, if the 19 prisoner’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal 20 conclusions that are untenable (e.g. claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of 21 infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual 22 allegations (e.g. fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also McKeever 23 v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 26 2 1 To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct 2 complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct 3 deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 4 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 II. Instant Complaint 6 Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Ely State Prison (“ESP”), has sued Nevada 7 Governor James Gibbons, Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) Director Howard Skolnik, 8 NDOC Medical Director Robert Bruce Bannister, ESP Director of Nursing Joe Brackbill, ESP Warden 9 Eldon K. McDaniel, NDOC doctors John Perry, Karen Gedney, Marsha Johns, and NDOC ear nose and 10 throat specialist Schlager. Plaintiff asserts that due to an ear infection that went untreated at ESP he 11 developed two fistulas. Plaintiff claims that the lack of treatment caused irreparable damage to his right 12 ear, damaged his salivary glands, necessitated the extraction of seven teeth and caused other damage. 13 Plaintiff states that he filed numerous grievances and that defendants Bannister, Gedney, Johns, Perry, 14 Skolnik and the Utilization Review Panel, denied him treatment due to cost. Plaintiff alleges that these 15 defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of his Eighth 16 Amendment rights. 17 First, while plaintiff includes vague allegations against Governor Gibbons, government 18 officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established 19 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. 20 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In Saucier v. Katz, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the 21 application of qualified immunity, explaining that officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) 22 plaintiff alleges facts that show a constitutional violation and (2) it was clearly established at the time 23 of the alleged violation that the conduct was unconstitutional. 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The Supreme 24 Court stressed that the first part of the analysis is the threshold question that courts should address before 25 proceeding to the second part. Id. at 207. Plaintiff sets forth no allegations that Gibbons acted in 26 violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Gibbons is dismissed from this action. 3 1 Next, “[l]iability under [§] 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by 2 the defendant. A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional violations of . . . subordinates if the 3 supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent 4 them. There is no respondeat superior liability under [§] 1983.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 5 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); see also Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007); Ortez 6 v. Washington County, State of Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding proper to dismiss where 7 no allegations of knowledge of or participation in alleged violation). Plaintiff does not describe any 8 specific actions by Warden McDaniel, nor does he allege that Warden McDaniel had knowledge of or 9 participated in any alleged civil rights violation. Defendant McDaniel is dismissed from this action. 10 Plaintiff also names nurse Brackbill and specialist Schlager as defendants. While he 11 makes a vague allegation that these two and other defendants practice a “treat and return” policy, he 12 states no specific claims against these defendants. Brackbill and Schlager are dismissed from this action. 13 With respect to the remaining defendants, plaintiff contends that they have been 14 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth 15 Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments and “embodies broad and 16 idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 17 97, 102 (1976). A detainee or prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and 18 unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious 19 medical needs.” Id. at 106. The “deliberate indifference” standard involves an objective and a 20 subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” 21 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). 22 Second, the prison official must act with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than 23 mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer, 511 24 U.S. at 837. A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows 25 of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 26 4 1 In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a 2 prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. 3 Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” 4 Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. 5 “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does 6 not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does 7 not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 8 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. 9 Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (overruled on other grounds), WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 10 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish 11 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th 12 Cir. 1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support a claim of 13 deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 Delay of, or interference with, medical treatment can also amount to deliberate 15 indifference. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 16 905 (9th Cir. 2002); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 17 1131 (9th Cir. 1996); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 18 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 19 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). Where the 20 prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, however, the prisoner 21 must show that the delay led to further injury. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745-46; McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 22 1060; Shapley v. Nev. Bd. Of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). 23 Plaintiff states Eighth Amendment medical claims against the remaining defendants. 24 Finally, in count II plaintiff makes a bare assertion, without elaboration, that defendants 25 entered into a civil conspiracy to violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. As plaintiff sets forth no 26 facts implicating his Fourteenth Amendment rights, this claim is dismissed. 5 1 III. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis (docket #1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is GRANTED; plaintiff shall not be 4 required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 5 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996. The movant herein is 6 permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or 7 the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma pauperis status shall not extend to the 8 issuance of subpoenas at government expense. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the 10 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996, the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk 11 of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits to the 12 account of Gilbert Demetrius Aguilar, Inmate No. 56067 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) 13 until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to 14 the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. 15 Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise 17 unsuccessful, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by the 18 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall FILE the complaint (docket #1-1). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Gibbons, McDaniel, Brackbill and 21 Schlager are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is 22 23 DISMISSED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 25 defendants Howard Skolnik, Robert Bannister, Karen Gedney, Marsha Johns, and John Perry MAY 26 PROCEED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 1 2 1. The Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order, along with a copy of plaintiff’s 3 complaint, on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, to the attention of Pamela 4 Sharp. 5 2. The Attorney General’s Office shall advise the Court within twenty-one (21) days of the date 6 of entry of this order whether it can accept service of process for the named defendants. As to any of 7 the named defendants for which the Attorney General’s Office cannot accept service, the Office shall 8 file, under seal, the last known address(es) of those defendant(s). 9 3. If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), plaintiff shall file a motion 10 identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a summons, and specifying a full name and 11 address for said defendant(s). Plaintiff is reminded that, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of 12 Civil Procedure, service must be accomplished within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date the 13 complaint was filed. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, plaintiff shall serve upon defendants, or, 15 if an appearance has been made by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion, or 16 other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper 17 submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed 18 to the defendants or counsel for defendants. If counsel has entered a notice of appearance, the plaintiff 19 shall direct service to the individual attorney named in the notice of appearance, at the address stated 20 therein. The court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or a magistrate judge that has 21 not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper which fails to include a certificate showing proper service. 22 DATED: December 13, 2010 23 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 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.