Solorio v. Larranaga

• Decision Date: 16 June 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-cv-00716-DAD-SAB (PC)
• Parties: JACOB RAY SOLORIO, Formerly known as Brianna Nycole Solorio Plaintiff, v. LISA LARRANAGA, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

JACOB RAY SOLORIO, Formerly known as Brianna Nycole Solorio Plaintiff, v. LISA LARRANAGA, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00716-DAD-SAB (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 16, 2020

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

[ECF Nos. 18, 19]

Plaintiff Jacob Ray Solorio¹ is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 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. Plaintiff's complaint in this action was filed on May 22, 1019. (ECF No. 1.)

///

/// On November 27, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on January 6, 2020. On January 23, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.)

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.)

On April 9, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint, but Plaintiff failed to do so. (Id.) Accordingly, on May 20, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's May 20, 2020 order. Therefore, dismissal is warranted.

I.SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 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).

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 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 Cir. 2002).

Prisoners 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.

II.COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Lisa Larranaga, identified as a Wellpath Program Manager ("Larranaga"); (2) Duncan Denise, identified as a captain ("Duncan")²; (3) Lieutenant Kirk ("Kirk"); (4) Monique Brown, identified as a program director ("Brown"); (5) Jeff Dirske, identified as a sheriff-coroner ("Dirske"); and (6) the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriff's Department").³ (SAC 1-3.)

A. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action

Plaintiff's first cause of action is described as "access to treatment concerning medical/psychological condition[,] cruel and unus[ua]l punishment[, and] due process deprivation of mental health treatments."⁴ (SAC 3.) Since 2015, Plaintiff has been a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Stanislaus County Jail. (SAC 4.) Plaintiff is a transgender inmate and suffers from gender dysphoria. (Id.) For over four years, Plaintiff alleges they have diligently requested psychological treatments by a competent mental health provider that specializes, treats, and isexperienced with transsexual persons. (Id.) Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant Larranaga failed to secure psychological treatment, Defendants Duncan, Kirk, and Brown, denied treatment, and Dirske has supervisor liability. (SAC 3.) Plaintiff's complaint is separated into sections for each individual Defendant in relation to the first cause of action, and the Court now turns to these individual sections.

1. First Cause of Action - Defendant Dirske

Plaintiff alleges the following:

[Defendant] Dirske is responsible in his individual capacity for his own culpable inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates, for his ac[]quiescence in the constitutional deprivation or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others, hence, of transgender inmates.

Currently the sheriff[']s facility has and has not had a policy affording Transgender Inmates the same rights afforded to het[e]rosexual inmates in regards to psychological mental health treatments for gender dysphoria making the mental health system defic[i]ent and unconstitutional, [and] implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or dec[i]sion offic[i]ally. Currently the[re] is no policy or regulation to treat trans inmates.

Since 2015 I have been in custody of at the Stanislaus County Jail.

Since 2015 I have requested to be seen by a comp[et]ent mental health provider who specializes in transgender care.

Over the course of more than four years my request[s] have been delayed and or denied.

Between 2015 to 2017 I[']ve sent numerous request[s] to B.H.R.S. informing them that I suffer from severe gender dysphoria and to no avail have I received help.

In 2017, I grievanced Mrs. Larranaga and was denied access to a trained psychologist and if I wanted psychological treatments I would then have to be seen by Well-Path and B.H.R.S. providers, which are contracted out by the Stanislaus County Sheriff[']s [Department].

Said providers are not trained or experienced in the treatments of trans inmates nor specialize in such care.

On numerous accounts I have informed the Defendants that because of gender dysphoria I felt a danger to my person. As a result of years of denial I was injured because of the culpable actions of the subordinates of [the] Sheriff. [The] Sheriff was given notice of all my request incidents [and] was given notice of systematic problems in the county jail under his supervision.

(SAC 6-8.)

2. First Cause of Action - Defendant Larranaga

Plaintiff puts forth the following allegations as to Defendant Larranaga:

Lisa Larranaga is responsible in her individual capacity for her own inaction. In 2017 I grievanced [the] Program Manager to be seen by a trans-specialist and was denied stating that if I wanted to be seen I would have to been by non[-]specializing providers.

I appealed that dec[i]sion and L.T. Kirk, Facility Commander, denied my requeststating that it was a medical issue and that Mrs. Larranaga will handle all medical matters and that he has no authority over medical dec[i]sions.

Between 2017 and 4-2-19 I[']ve sent dil[]igently numerous request[s] regarding my safety to my person and that mental/psychiatric assessments and extensive therap[]y focused on gender dysphoria was needed.

I have still yet to be seen or provided with trained professionals.

On 4-2-19 I grievanced Program Manager Lisa Larranaga about the same issues that have been addressed in the past and was denied again, stating I need to fill out a Blue form for mental health providers.

On 8-8-18, 12-01-19, 1-18-2018[,] 3-27-19[,] 4-1-19[,] 5-3-2019[,] 4-3-2019[,] 8-6-18[,] 2-26-19[,] and dates and times up to the present can be [subpoenaed] by the Courts.

On 2-7-19[,] I informed Lisa Larranaga concerns regarding my safety here[,] the endange[r]ment to my self and to the safety and security of this facility because of the deprivation of being denied adequate mental health services. Again I was directed to submit a blue medical request form.

In March of 2019, I had an episode of self[-]attempted cast[]ration and had to be taken to a local hospital by ambulance for sutures for severe lacerations[,] causing significant amounts of pain due to such inaction of all Defend[a]nts.

Over the course I have advised Lisa Larranaga and her superiors that my condition causes significant amounts of distress, impairment in social, and other important areas of functioning.

In a face to face meeting with Mrs. Larranaga and her superior Monique Brown, mental health director[,] stated that I have been seen over forty times by mental health providers. I then confirmed her allegation which was true in part. I have seen but for reasons not relating to gender dysphoria.

Upon me revealing such I was then told by both Defend[a]nts, that I would have to see their providers and that they are not trained in that area of expertise but can Google search for information that I may need and or request.

Since 2015 to 2017 I[']ve submitted [illegible] to B.H.R.S. providers stressing the urgency of mental health treatments even though they are not trained or specialize in that particular area, I felt it necessary to see if maybe they were comp[et]ent enough to show some type of guid[a]nce and or advise for my condition. My attempts

...