Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glen W. Robison v. Paramvir Sahota

June 5, 2011



Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Eighth Amendment have been violated by deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. This action is proceeding against nine defendants named in plaintiff's original complaint, filed December 7, 2010. This matter is before the court on the motion of defendants Grannis, Stocker and Johnson to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.*fn1


Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provides for motions to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007), and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 (quoting Bell Atlantic at 554, in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).


Plaintiff's complaint contains the following allegations relevant to the instant motion.

In 1981, plaintiff was shot just above the knee cap with a 30.6 rifle. The injury required three surgeries and left his left femur 1 3/4 inches shorter. Thereafter, plaintiff required a left lift shoe, which he wore until he was sent to state prison. In 2003, plaintiff arrived at Folsom State Prison (Folsom). He went to sick call on a few occasions and explained that without and orthopedic shoe, a double right knee brace, and a pair of thermal underwear he suffered severe pain in his left hip and knee, particularly in the winter. Plaintiff filed a grievance in January 2004 from the delay in receiving the shoe. He did not receive the shoe until November 2004. He was denied a pair of thermals and a visit with an orthopedic specialist by defendants Grannis and Peterson.

In January 2005, plaintiff filed another grievance seeking a pair of thermals, which had been ordered for him by a treating physician. That grievance was denied by defendants Grannis and Stocker based on statements from defendant Peterson that there was no indication plaintiff needed thermals,

In 2006, plaintiff was taken off pain medication. Defendants Grannis, Stocker and Sahota refused to correct this or to consider placing plaintiff on different pain medication.

On December 26, 2007, plaintiff attempted to file a grievance to substantiate his ongoing and increasing pain. Defendant Johnson rejected the grievance as duplicative of another grievance.

From the time of his arrival at Folsom in 2003, plaintiff's weight on his 6'2" frame dropped from 183 pounds to 161 pounds and his pelvis and knee became weaker. In October 2006, plaintiff wrote a grievance requesting physical therapy and transfer to a medical facility. Defendants Grannis, Stocker, Cardino and Dunlap granted him physical therapy without an instructor, a therapy room, or equipment.

From May 2007 through 2010, plaintiff has made several attempts to obtain access to a program to gain weight, these requests have been denied by defendants Stocker, Grannis, Cardino, and Sahota.


Plaintiff raises two separate claims against defendants Grannis, Stocker and Johnson. First, he includes these defendants in his claim that his rights under the Eighth Amendment have been violated by defendants' deliberate indifference to his serious medical need for adequate treatment of the pain in his left hip, leg and knee. In order to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must allege that he had a "serious medical need" and that defendant acted with "deliberate indifference" to that need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). A medical need is serious if "the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'" McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Deliberate indifference is proved by evidence that a prison official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Mere negligence is insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

Whether a defendant had requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact and a fact finder may conclude that a defendant knew of a substantial risk based on the fact that the risk was obvious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. While the obviousness of the risk is not conclusive, a defendant cannot escape liability if the evidence shows that the defendant merely refused to verify underlying facts or declined to confirm inferences that he strongly suspected to be true. Id. Deliberate indifference specifically to medical needs "may be shown by circumstantial evidence when the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.