Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Wilkens v. Gill

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 14, 2017

JAMAL LADELL WILKENS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. GILL et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOC. NOS. 29 & 31]

          Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Jamal Ladell Wilkens (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants Dr. Gill and Deputy Parrot (“Defendants”) each filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Despite the liberal pleading standards afforded to a pro se litigant, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' motions be GRANTED and that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend.

         I. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

         Plaintiff filed his original Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants Gill and Parrot each filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on August 12, 2016 (Doc. Nos. 13, 14), and the Court granted those motions with leave to amend on October 11, 2016 (Doc. No. 20). On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. Nos. 22, 23), and the Court granted those motions with leave to amend on December 13, 2016 (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 3, 2017. (Doc. No. 25.) For the third time, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on January 13, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 29, 31.) Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. No. 36), and Defendants each replied (Doc. Nos. 37, 38).

         II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges violations of his right to medical care and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, which this Court will construe as alleging violations of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. No. 25 at 3.) For unknown reasons, the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations. However, because the facts are germane to the discussion below, the factual background that follows is gleaned in part from the First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

         Plaintiff contends that Dr. Gill violated his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his “serious medical needs.” (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 25 at 3.) Plaintiff similarly alleges that Deputy Parrot “purposefully failed to act so as to delay, deny, and interfere with the receipt of care for my serious medical needs.” (Id. at 4.) He also claims that RN #4970 violated his rights by “purposefully denying, and delaying [t]o have me seen by [t]he [d]octor when [my] medical condition ha[d] gotten worse, ” despite knowledge of Plaintiff's “serious medical condition.” (Id. at 5.)

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. However, all events related to this case transpired around December 2015 at George Bailey Detention Facility in San Diego, California, where he was housed as a pre-trial detainee. (First Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 21 at 3.) While Plaintiff was at George Bailey, Dr. Gill saw him for a blood draw and STD test. (Id.) Dr. Gill did not ask Plaintiff “necessary questions” or take down Plaintiff's medical history. (Id. at 11.)

         Based on the results of the test, Dr. Gill apparently decided to “experiment” on Plaintiff, labeling him as a diabetic suffering from hypertension and, accordingly, prescribed him blood pressure and diabetes medications. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff suffered an allergic reaction to the medications, which resulted in his inability to walk “due to the severe pain, swelling, and numbness in his feet, toes, and legs.” (Id.) He elaborated:

The pain and swelling was so severe I couldn't sleep. I couldn't walk. I couldn't exercise. I couldn't even defend myself from an inmate assault if I had to. Deputy Parrot had to bring me my meals . . . I had to be wheelchaired [sic] because I could not walk or stand without falling to the ground in agonizing pain because the swelling was making my feet like balloons. Any task or daily activity imaginable was impossible for me to do. I was bedridden.

(Id. at 4.) After Dr. Gill was apprised of Plaintiff's adverse reaction to the medicine, he apparently refused to treat Plaintiff's “severe pain.” (Id. at 3.) It is unclear whether Plaintiff saw Dr. Gill again in person after he suffered the adverse reaction. Once Plaintiff arrived at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California, the doctors there determined that he was not diabetic or suffering from hypertension. (Id. at 4.) Apparently, however, “Plaintiff is forced to take blood pressure medications that he doesn't need due to the fact that if he stops the medication after [he] had been taking [them] for so long, [he] could have a stroke.” (Id.) The doctor at the Chino facility has not discontinued Plaintiff's blood pressure medication. (Id.)

         While still at George Bailey, Plaintiff repeatedly asked Deputy Parrot to take him to the medical ward to see a doctor about his reaction to the medications. (Id. at 5.) Because Plaintiff was bed-ridden and Deputy Parrot had to bring Plaintiff his food, Deputy Parrot was aware that Plaintiff was in pain and saw that Plaintiff's legs and feet were swollen. (Id.) Plaintiff indicates that he “told Parrot directly every medical issue that he was having and of the pain he was in” but that Deputy Parrot gave him the “run around” every time. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he pleaded with Deputy Parrot to take him to the medical ward to no avail. (Id.)

         Additionally, at some point, Plaintiff had contact with RN #4970. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff does not clarify when, where, or how often he saw RN #4970. In their interactions, Plaintiff described his symptoms and pain, but RN #4970 told him that “there [were too] many inmates that needed to see a doctor” and that, consequently, Plaintiff could not be seen. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that RN #4970 misrepresented the inmate traffic in the medical ward. (Id.)

         Because nobody treated Plaintiff's symptoms, Plaintiff was in pain for ...


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.