Jacobs v. CDCR
| Decision Date | 06 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-00547-BAM (PC) |
| Parties | GEORGE E. JACOBS, IV, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff George E. Jacobs, IV ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 14, 2020, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 11.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 24.) Following a fifth extension of time, Plaintiff's first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal was due on or before March 22, 2021. (ECF No. 21.) The deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A 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 Atl. 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 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at both CSATF and at California State Prison, Corcoran ("CSP-Corcoran") in Corcoran, California.Plaintiff names the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"); (2) CSP-Corcoran; (3) CSATF; (4) Reasonable Accommodation Panel members at CSP-Corcoran: D. Overley, D. Goree, U. Williams, M. Miguel, C. McCabe, S. Hernandez, Dentinger, M. Gamboa, M. Oliveira, S. Russell, and B. Adams; (5) Reasonable Accommodation Panel members at CSATF: P. Brightwell, J. Zamora, A. Enemoh, T. Ordonez, V. Hernandez and S. Whiting; and (6) CSATF custody officers: B. Clegg, M. Lefner, H. Garcia, Helmuth, K. Paulo, Menhenez (Jimenez), E. Sanchez, A. Arreazola, C. Livingston, D. Stohl, and T. Ibbs.
On November 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed for Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") accommodations due to a disabled right arm, wrist and fingers that prevented him from writing letters, bathing, balancing and dressing. Plaintiff claims that while he qualified under the ADA, Defendants Overley, Goree, Williams, Miguel, McCabe, Hernandez and Dentinger denied Plaintiff his reasonable accommodations.
On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed for ADA accommodations due to his disabled right arm and hand that prevented him from engaging in major life activities. Although Plaintiff qualified under the ADA, Defendants Gamboa, Oliveira, Russell, Miguel, McCabe and Adam denied Plaintiff his right to reasonable accommodations.
On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed for ADA accommodations to California Correctional Health Care Services based on his same disability. Although he qualified, Defendant McCabe only partially granted the request, placing the burden on correctional officers to provide Plaintiff with ADA accommodations.
On July 11, 2016, Defendant McCabe retracted the partially granted status and informed Plaintiff that because he had been transferred to another institution—CSATF—they could no longer provide treatment.
On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed another reasonable accommodation request for his disability. Plaintiff stated that he had no ADA access to the shower and was being denied his right to shower. Defendant S. Hernandez reportedly told the guards that they did not have to givePlaintiff a reasonable accommodation to the ADA shower because Plaintiff was not ADA. The guards began denying Plaintiff access to the ADA shower, which led to Plaintiff living in unsanitary conditions and hygiene.
On May 19, 2016, Defendants Gamboa, Oliveira, Miguel, McCabe, and Adam denied Plaintiff's request and informed Plaintiff to work with medical staff with addressing his medical concerns.
On May 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed another ADA request to custody based on his need to access the law library and to have someone help by writing for him. Custody refused to reply to the 602 complaint and Plaintiff was denied access to the prison law library and resources.
On the same day, Plaintiff filed an additional healthcare complaint due to CDCR and/or its designees allegedly falsifying Plaintiff's records out of retaliation and to conspire against him to deny him reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff alleges that his medical records and status were mysteriously downgraded from a high-risk medical condition to a medium risk. When Plaintiff inquired as to how his status was changed without a reevaluation by his primary care provider, medical staff could not explain this occurrence. Plaintiff asserts that medical status can only be changed by an authorized physician. Plaintiff reportedly requested that an internal affairs investigation be conducted to find out who generated and falsified his medical documents. CDCR denied Plaintiff's request.
On June 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed another ADA accommodation request due to his disabled arm. Although he qualified, Defendants Gamboa, Oliveira, Williams, Hernandez and McCabe denied Plaintiff the right to reasonable accommodations.
On June 24, 2016, as a result of CSP-Corcoran's denial of his ADA accommodations and the alleged falsification of his medical records changing his status to medium risk, CDCR or its designee moved Plaintiff to a 180-design maximum security level 4 general population prison—CSATF.
On August 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed another ADA accommodation request due to his disability. Although he qualified, Defendants Brightwell, Zamora, Enemoh, Ordonez, Hernandezand Whiting denied Plaintiff reasonable accommodations. Defendants acknowledged in writing that Plaintiff needed assistance in writing and showering, but they denied him reasonable accommodations.
On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff refiled his medical grievance regarding the allegedly false medical document changing his status. On February 21, 2017, medical staff informed Plaintiff that the documentation in question was no longer in his medical file. Plaintiff claims that it mysteriously disappeared.
On October 1, 2016, due to the failure to properly medically house Plaintiff, CSATF forced Plaintiff to be housed in a cell on the upper top bunk bed. Plaintiff explained to CSATF correctional staff that he could not be housed on the upper bunk bed due to his disability, which they could see. Plaintiff also showed them his lower bunk medical chrono, which they disregarded.
Plaintiff alleges that CDCR has a policy in place that if an inmate refuses a housing assignment for any reason, then the inmate will be penalized and punished with disciplinary sanctions. Plaintiff was advised of the policy that if he refused the housing assignment for any reason, he would be penalized and punished. As a result of being forced to adhere to the policy and his assignment to the top bunk, Plaintiff injured his left hand and wrist when he fell off of the top bunk. He reportedly sustained this injury while breaking the fall and protecting his disabled right arm from further injury. Plaintiff was sent to an outside hospital for treatment.
On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff again filed for an ADA reasonable accommodation based on his disability and his injury. Plaintiff asserts that he was disabled in both his left and right hands and wrists. CSATF and California Healthcare Services denied Plaintiff's ADA accommodation requests, but they did acknowledge that Plaintiff was improperly housed at CSATF due to his medical classification. They reportedly stated that "it was 'beyond' the medical information provided." (ECF No. 1 at 15.) CSATF and California Healthcare Services provided Plaintiff with no reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial