United States District Court, E.D. California
TERRENCE L. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
J. GRASE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER (ECF Nos. 10,
Terrence L. Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and
found that Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim
for relief. (ECF No. 10.) The Court's screening order
provided Plaintiff with the legal standards that applied to
his claims and granted Plaintiff leave to file a first
amended complaint within thirty days after service of the
order. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff was expressly warned
that, if he failed to file an amended complaint in compliance
with the Court's order, the Court would recommend to the
District Judge that this action be dismissed, with prejudice,
for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order,
and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 16.)
August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of
time to file a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) On
August 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and
gave Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to timely file
a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12).
October 4, 2019, following Plaintiff's failure to file a
first amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the
Court, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first
amended complaint or show cause in writing why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure
to comply with the Court's June 26, 2019 order, and
failure to prosecute, within fourteen (14) days from the date
of service of the order. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was again
expressly warned that failure to comply with the Court's
order would result in a recommendation to the District Judge
that the action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to
prosecute. (Id. at 2.)
deadline for Plaintiff to file either a first amended
complaint or a written response showing cause why the action
should not be dismissed expired on October 24, 2019, and
Plaintiff has not filed either a first amended complaint or a
written response or otherwise communicated with the Court.
Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this action
for the reasons discussed below.
Failure to State a Claim
Screening Requirement and Standard
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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
complaint must 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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are
entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to
have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must
be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual
detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The
“sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that
are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
Summary of Allegations
names Dr. Jerome Grase, Dr. Barney Rosen, Dr. W. Walsh, Dr.
Jennifer Seymour, Jessica Russell, Melyssa MacQuarrie, Julia
Mantonya, CCI Tascano, Janai Rodriguez, Johanna McCain, CCI
Rubalcava, Kelly Nesson, H. Leiva, unnamed members of the
IDTT on April 23, 2018, May 2, 2018, and August 1, 2018,
unnamed CCI Tehachapi Medical Appeals Office Supervisors and
Personnel, unnamed CCI Tehachapi Administrative personnel,
unnamed CCI medical personnel, Dr. Jane/John Does, and Jane -
John Does, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Case Workers, ACSWs,
Supervisors, and LCSWs as Defendants.
arrived at California Correctional Institution
(“CCI”) on April 14, 2018. Upon arrival,
Plaintiff informed unnamed correctional officers that he was
having ongoing and severe mental health problems, including
paranoia, homicidal episodes, anxiety attacks, racing
thoughts, severe depressional bouts, and manic episodes. The
correctional officers contacted unnamed mental health
personnel, who interviewed and evaluated Plaintiff. After
Plaintiff was assessed, the mental health personnel concluded
that Plaintiff had to be sent to CCI's crisis beds and
then transferred to Kern Valley State Prison's
(“KVSP”) mental health crisis beds. On April 15,
2018, Plaintiff was transported from CCI's crisis beds to
KVSP's crisis beds, for acute care and/or treatment, and
was received and processed by unnamed KVSP mental health
personnel. Plaintiff informed the KVSP mental health
personnel about his immediate and acute psychiatric problems.
Plaintiff missed his first Interdisciplinary Treatment Team
(“IDTT”) hearing due to his mental health
problems, he attended the second IDTT hearing on April 23,
2018. At the hearing, Plaintiff described his immediate,
severe, precipitating, and decompensating mental health
problems. Further, Plaintiff told the IDTT hearing about his
history. Plaintiff explained that, while he was housed at
California Men's Colony, on August 31, 2017, he was given
a Rules Violation Report for threatening to kill his
then-psychiatrist. In September 2017, Plaintiff was sent to
the state hospital, PIP-Stockton, for a 180-day program due
to his ongoing psychological problems. However, Plaintiff was
released from the state hospital after 20 to 26 days because
he had developed plans to kill his PIP-Stockton treatment
he related his history to the KVSP crisis bed IDTT members,
Plaintiff asserted that he needed to be transferred to an
acute-care treatment program, like California Medical
Facility in Vacaville. However, the KVSP IDTT members refused
to send Plaintiff to California Medical Facility, stated that
they would make a referral to send Plaintiff to an
Intermediate Care Facility (“ICF”), and then
discharged Plaintiff back to CCI.
Plaintiff arrived back at CCI on an unknown date, he was
still as unstable mentally as when he left. Additionally, the
KVSP IDTT members failed to refer Plaintiff to an ICF.
Instead, the KVSP IDTT members made a suggestion that
Plaintiff be transferred to an ICF.
unknown date, Plaintiff was again sent to KVSP's crisis
beds for the same mental decompensation, but only stated for
an unstated number of days before being returned to CCI. When
Plaintiff went to an IDTT committee meeting at an unnamed
facility, the IDTT members stated that Plaintiff could be
placed in an ICF program, but also placed in an unnamed
alleges that Defendants are officials at CCI and KVSP, who
are operating within their assigned job duties and scope,
who, with a culpable state of mind, arbitrarily failed and/or
refused to provide Plaintiff with adequate, effective mental
health and/or medical care for Plaintiff's ongoing and
precipitating serious mental, physical, and emotional
injuries and deprivations. (ECF No. 1, at 7.) Defendants
named are employed by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation as mental health, warden, and
medical officials responsible for the oversight of the
operations and enforcement of mental health policies,
protocols, practices, standards, and procedures required by
state and federal laws, which create obligations to provide
mental health care services, meaningful follow-ups,
treatments, and A.D.A. accommodations, which are not being
provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that his ongoing
mental, physical, and emotional deprivations continue to be
disregarded and not adequately treated due to Defendants'
direct bias and ulterior motives. Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that all of the Defendants are acting jointly together to
delay, deny, and deprive Plaintiff of adequate and meaningful
mental health care, treatment, and A.D.A. accommodations in
order to try and make Plaintiff hurt other people or himself.
Plaintiff asserts that he has no administrative remedies
because CCI personnel have arbitrarily and wrongfully blocked
his 602 HC health care appeals against the KVSP IDTT Crisis
Bed committee members and against the CCI IDTT officials.
Plaintiff asserts that, then, CCI officials wrote their own
602 HC health care appeal, without Plaintiff's knowledge
and consent, in order to negate the ongoing staff misconduct
and deliberate indifference.
relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, appointment
of a special master to investigate Plaintiff's claims and
provide all of Plaintiff's records to the Court, a
preliminary and/or permanent injunction, an order
transferring Plaintiff to an ICF 1-year program, appointment
of counsel, ...