The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS LOO, HUANG, NEUBARTH, ORTIZ, AND McVICAR TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tyrone R. Jones ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on March 12, 2001. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on October 9, 2001, directing the United States Marshal to serve process on defendants G. Lewis, Ducray, L.B. McVicar, W. Buehler, J.C. Smith, V.M. McKnight, W.R. Williams, L. Loo, J. Neubarth, R. Ortiz, H. Huang, C.J. Sanchez, C. Murtaugh, Davis, Cantu, Tress, and Stephens.*fn1 (Doc. 9.)
On November 29, 2001, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and on March 6, 2002, defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss. (Docs. 33, 48.) On March 10, 2003, the court denied the motion, with leave to renew it in light of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Wyatt v. Terhune.*fn2 (Docs. 81, 91.)
On March 31, 2003, defendants renewed the motion to dismiss the complaint based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 97.) On March 11, 2004, the renewed motion was granted in part and denied in part, leaving the case to proceed only against defendants Cantu and Davis on Plaintiff's excessive force claims, and dismissing all other claims and defendants. (Docs. 107, 109.)
On March 25, 2004, defendants Cantu and Davis filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 110.) On April 15, 2004, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order setting pretrial deadlines. (Doc. 111.) On May 11, 2004, defendants Cantu and Davis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies on the excessive force claim. (Doc. 114.) On January 19, 2005, the motion was granted, and the case was dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. (Docs. 121, 122.) Judgment was entered on January 19, 2005. (Doc. 123.)
On January 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 124.) On May 26, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment, remanding the action. (Doc. 133.) The judgment was affirmed as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Murtaugh regarding sleep deprivation, Plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendants Davis and Cantu, Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim regarding access to prescription medication, and Plaintiff's retaliation claim concerning Plaintiff's placement in administrative segregation. The judgment was vacated as to the dismissal of Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims regarding treatment of his bunions, hemorrhoids and skin condition, in light of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Griffin v Arpaio.*fn3 The district court reopened the case on June 2, 2009. This case now proceeds only against defendants Dr. Larry Loo, Dr. Neuberth, Dr. Huang, Dr. Ortiz, and McVicar, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care related to his bunions, hemorrhoids, and skin condition.
II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING TREATMENT OF HIS BUNIONS, HEMORRHOIDS, AND SKIN CONDITION
Plaintiff was in custody at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, at the time the events at issue occurred. Plaintiff alleges as follows in the complaint in support of his claims against defendants Loo, Neubarth, Huang, Ortiz, and McVicar, regarding treatment of his bunions, hemorrhoids, and skin condition.
Before being transferred from CTF Soledad to PVSP, Plaintiff was under doctor's care for several medical problems, including very severe hemorrhoids causing bleeding from the anus, severe painful bunions on both feet, and chronic back pain. At CTF Soledad, his feet were measured for orthopedic shoes, but he did not receive them.
When he arrived at PVSP on February 11, 2000, Plaintiff made his medical problems known to the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Larry Loo ("Dr. Loo") via an inmate request, and requested to see Dr. Loo. Dr. Loo informed Plaintiff that he could not see him immediately, due to the doctor's busy schedule.
Plaintiff repeatedly made requests for medical care and saw other doctors, including Drs. Neubarth, Ortiz, and Huang. These doctors only prescribed medication for the bleeding, which made it worse. Dr. Neubarth examined Plaintiff with a "Computator" and prescribed medication, but he did not order surgery for the hemorrhoids. Plaintiff told all of the doctors that the medications were not doing any good and that he was in severe pain and continually bleeding.
In January 2001, Plaintiff was finally seen by Dr. Loo, who examined him for rectal bleeding and bunions and concluded that Plaintiff needed surgery for both the hemorrhoids and the bunions. Dr. Loo told Plaintiff his problems were not an emergency, and he wrote a chrono for Plaintiff to be provided state-issued boots, even though other doctors have recommended soft shoes due to the bunion deformity.
Plaintiff maintains that his medical problems were well-documented in his records, but neither Dr. Loo nor Dr. Neubarth checked his medical files. Dr. Huang only made an examination of Plaintiff's anus with gloved fingers, which made him worse. Dr. Huang did not recommend surgery, even though Plaintiff showed him bloody tissues several times and told him the medication was not doing any good. Despite Plaintiff's requests, none of the doctors took x-rays or sent him to a medical facility or outside doctor for the hemorrhoids or bunions. Dr. Ortiz recommended orthopedic shoes, but Plaintiff had not received them by February 2001. Plaintiff was ...