United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF
NO. 1) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21)
Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 12, 2018,
Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing of a Complaint
alleging that he was denied timely treatment of a back injury
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
March 26, 2018, the Court screened the Complaint and
concluded that it fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. (ECF No. 6). Specifically, the Court found
that Plaintiff failed to allege that any of the defendants
knew he had a medical need and purposefully failed to treat
screening order directed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on
the Complaint, subject to the issuance of findings and
recommendations to the assigned district judge. Id.
On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff notified the Court that he
wishes to stand on the Complaint. (ECF No. 9).
reasons described below, the Court recommends that this
action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiff may file objections within twenty-one days
of the date of service of these findings and recommendations.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the
action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint is required to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as
true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting
this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-
79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969
(9th Cir. 2009).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
is an inmate at Corcoran State Prison
(“Corcoran”). He alleges that he has a serious
medical condition, and the failure to treat that condition
has caused him serious injury.
had surgery on his right knee on November 30, 2016, to repair
a torn meniscus. Plaintiff had complications with the healing
process. Plaintiff alerted Defendant Robin McConnell about
his knee pain. Plaintiff told her that his back had given out
and that he had fallen more than once. Defendant McConnell
responded that there was nothing wrong with Plaintiff's
back and that his knee was fine. She then told Plaintiff that
he was faking his symptoms. The surgeon who performed his
surgery prescribed T#3 for pain, which Plaintiff did not get.
Instead, Plaintiff got Motrin for pain. Defendant McConnell
also put in a report that Plaintiff's issues with his
back may be the source of his knee pain. She told Plaintiff,
“As I said I think you are faking and that is
that.” She also told Plaintiff that she would give him
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (“MRI”) “to
prove that he was faking symptoms.”
had the MRI on September 18, 2017. It showed a re-torn
meniscus and herniated disc in Plaintiff's back. This
revealed that Plaintiff was correct about his injury for the
10 months before the MRI.
on August 31, 2017, Plaintiff told Defendant Nguyen that his
lower back was hurting “really bad” and when he
tries to straighten his legs, they go numb. Defendant Nguyen
told Plaintiff there was nothing wrong with him, and to go
back to his cell. About an hour or so later, his back and
knee gave out, causing Plaintiff to fall and hurt himself.
Clark gave Plaintiff a muscle relaxer because he thought
Plaintiff had a severe muscle spasm, which later turned out