Jones v. Arnette
| Decision Date | 09 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC |
| Parties | JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. ARNETTE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE PROCEED WITH (1) PLAINTIFF'S ADA CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, KEENER, GONZALEZ, FLORES, ARNETTE, ZAMORA, AND LOPEZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,(2) PLAINTIFF'S EIGHTH AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, KEENER, AND GONZALEZ, AND (3) PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ, KEENER, AND GONZALEZ; AND THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 33.)
Jeremy Jones ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)
On August 21, 2017, the court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.)
On February 6, 2018, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 33.)
The 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).
A 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legalconclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California. The events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) Arnette, C/O Flores, C/O Lopez, C/O Zamora, C/O Vasquez, Sergeant Gonzalez, Lieutenant Keener, and Dr. Kim, who were employed at CSP during the relevant time period.
Plaintiff's allegations follow. Since 2006, Plaintiff has been a member of a protected class of people known as "Americans with Disabilities," which is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. ECF No. 33 at 7-8.
After more than two years in the SHU, Plaintiff was able to visit with his parents during his first contact visit that happened to fall on Plaintiff's birthday weekend. However, Plaintiff's serious medical condition began acting up. Plaintiff suffers from a lower back condition which causes chronic nerve irritation in both legs. Plaintiff has excruciating pain on a daily basis and can barely manage his pain with morphine and gabapentin three times a day.
After minutes of ambulating in his walker to visit his parents, Plaintiff felt and heard a loud "pop" in his lower back and his pain intensified so greatly in his back and legs that he burst into tears. Plaintiff's mother ran to alert the staff about Plaintiff's medical emergency. Plaintiff's visit was terminated and medical staff transported him to medical via wheelchair. By the time Plaintiff arrived at medical, it was already noon. Plaintiff was administered his usual noon medications and told to go back to his cell. Plaintiff tried to explain that he had not been seen by a nurse or doctor, but he was denied treatment, forcefully removed from the clinic by the on-call doctor, Dr. Kim, and nearly intentionally dumped from his wheelchair onto the floor of his cell by C/O Flores, with no regard to his injuries. Administering Plaintiff's already-prescribed medications does not constitute treatment. Something other than Plaintiff's usual pain waswrong, a spinal injury that occurred without explanation and should have been treated to prevent further injury. Dr. Kim was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's very serious medical need because he did not look into Plaintiff's history or find out how he was treated in the past. Past treatment consisted of prescribed medications, when it was time, and shots for immediate pain with evaluation including x-rays and scans to make sure no further damage was done. Something drastically went wrong because Plaintiff has been wheelchair-bound since.
The next day, August 12, 2012, Plaintiff's parents returned to check on him. Plaintiff's I.D. was cut up and thrown out the window of the program office by C/O Arnette in order to deny Plaintiff access to his visit. What ensued was blatant discrimination and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff was not allowed his visit for no other reason but his membership in a protected class, Americans with Disabilities. Unable to walk and in a wheelchair, Plaintiff was "easy pickins" for these officers to take out their life frustrations. ECF No. 33 at 10:1.
Plaintiff's caregiver went to retrieve Plaintiff's bed card. Defendants Gonzalez, Flores, Arnette, Lopez, and Zamora implemented the "Green Wall" tactic of intimidation by surrounding Plaintiff, making threats, hurling insults, using profane language, and making fun of his disabilities in violation of CCR Title 15 § 3391 and codes of conduct. ECF No. 33 at 10:4. Knowing that Plaintiff could not walk, the officers laughed and told him that if he couldn't walk then he couldn't attend the visit. The visiting staff saw what was happening and had compassion and radioed to the floor staff to retrieve Plaintiff's walker. When the caregiver returned with the walker Plaintiff told the officers that it had been 2 1/2 years since he kissed his parents' faces, and if it took him 2 1/2 hours he was going to make it to kiss his mother's face. Defendants Lopez and Zamora told Plaintiff that his bed card was not valid identification. But Plaintiff knew that a number of able-bodied inmates have been allowed to use their bed cards when their other IDs were missing. Under direct supervision of Sgt. Gonzalez these officers were allowed to discriminate against Plaintiff.
After more harassment, Plaintiff was moved out of the only building medically equipped for Plaintiff to shower. Plaintiff notified medical that he was improperly housed, and they attempted to accommodate him by moving him back to 5 Block. But defendant Vasquezsomehow stopped the move and banned Plaintiff from his building. Plaintiff notified defendants Lt. Keener and Sgt. Gonzalez, but Plaintiff was again denied proper accommodations and was unable to bathe for over a month. Defendants were made aware that due to his injuries, Plaintiff was unable to bathe himself in his cell. Plaintiff developed skin rashes and jock itch due to the lack of cleanliness. It wasn't until Plaintiff was transferred to a new facility that he was properly housed and was able to properly bathe and clear up these ailments.
Plaintiff's father was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and once the tumor was removed his eyesight was severely compromised. To make matters worse, Plaintiff's father was then diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. The officers under the supervision of Sgt. Gonzalez and Lt. Keener cost Plaintiff his last opportunity to have a meaningful visit with his father before his health deteriorated, all because Plaintiff had a medical emergency and couldn't walk. Plaintiff is in the mental health program at the CCCMS level and deals with this anguish daily. Although damages for emotional distress for inmates require physical injury, the deprivation of Plaintiff's Constitutional rights to this degree is a physical injury that is definitely more than de minimis. Dr. Kim is liable for emotional distress because the lack of treatment contributed to Plaintiff being confined to a wheelchair.
Plaintiff requests monetary and punitive damages.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,...
To continue reading
Request your trial