United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GARCIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF No. 52) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT GARCIA'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 67)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner, currently proceeding pro se, in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on August 21, 2012, for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants McGuiness, Wu, Nguyen, Garcia, Jimenez, Jeffreys, Chief Medical Officer at CSATF, and Chief Pharmacist at CSATF.
On May 30, 2013, Defendant Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the action against him without leave to amend. (ECF No. 52.) Subsequently, on August 2, 2013, Defendant Garcia filed an amended motion to dismiss, along with a request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, Defendant Garcia filed a reply regarding his amended motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 84.) The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
II. Motion to Dismiss filed on May 30, 2013
Defendant Garcia filed an amended motion to dismiss on August 2, 2013. The amended motion supplants the original motion to dismiss filed on May 30, 2013. Accordingly, Defendant Garcia's motion to dismiss, filed on May 30, 2013, is DENIED as moot.
III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Amended Motion to Dismiss filed on August 2, 2013
A. Second Amended Complaint Allegations
The events alleged in Plaintiff's second amended complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California.
Plaintiff alleged as follows: In late 1998, Plaintiff was diagnosed with open angle glaucoma. On June 14, 2000, upon entering CSATF, Plaintiff was given an initial assessment and prescribed eye drops - Timilol at.5% strength and Xalatan at.5% strength - to treat his glaucoma. On July 5, 2000, without consultation from an ophthalmologist, Defendant Nguyen reduced the strength of the Timilol to.25% and canceled the prescription for the Xalatan. Plaintiff was referred to ophthalmology. Due to the change in prescriptions, Plaintiff began to suffer great pain from increased pressure in both his right and left eyes. On August 31, 2000, Plaintiff's ophthalmology consultation was cancelled at the doctor's request. The consultation was not rescheduled.
On October 19, 2000, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Perkinson, an optometrist, regarding pain caused by an increase of pressure in his left eye. Dr. Perkinson noted that the pressure in Plaintiff's right eye measured 13, while the pressure in Plaintiff's left eye measured 17.
On March 7, 2002, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Medina, an optometrist, who prescribed Timilol at.5% strength and artificial tears to treat the increased pressure in Plaintiff's left eye.
Between March and August of 2002, Plaintiff was referred to ophthalmology two times and each time the referral was denied by an unidentified employee of the CSATF medical staff. During this period, the pressure in Plaintiff's left eye continued to steadily increase.
On September 16, 2002, Dr. Deere wrote Plaintiff a referral to ophthalmology, but the referral was denied by CSATF medical staff.
On July 30, 2003, Dr. Gonzales again referred Plaintiff to ophthalmology.
On October 8, 2003, Defendant Garcia, an optometrist, examined Plaintiff and noted the pressure in his left eye was 30. Defendant Garcia informed Plaintiff that his eye drop medication should be increased in strength and referred Plaintiff to ophthalmology. The change in the eye drop medication was never prescribed.
On October 10, 2003, Plaintiff was scheduled to see Dr. Kazi, an ophthalmologist, but the doctor was unable to examine Plaintiff because he was scheduled at the same time as five other inmates. Plaintiff's ophthalmology consultation was rescheduled for January 9, 2004, but Plaintiff had the flu and was unable to travel to his ophthalmology referral. The referral was rescheduled for February 13, 2004.
On February 13, 2004, the day of Plaintiff's appointment, guards refused to inform Plaintiff where they were taking him. Plaintiff was unaware that his ophthalmology consultation had been rescheduled and he refused to go with the guards absent information of where he was travelling.
On March 26, 2004, Dr. Wu examined Plaintiff and referred him for a routine ophthalmology appointment. The referral was approved, but Plaintiff ...