Opinion
2:22-cv-01098-JAD-BNW
11-01-2022
Aaron McCain, Plaintiff v. Medical Doctors HDSP, et al., Defendants
SCREENING ORDER
Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Aaron McCain brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated during his incarceration at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) when prison officials failed to adequately treat his hydrocele, a medical condition that causes his left testicle to become swollen and infected. Because McCain applies to proceed in forma pauperis, I screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I find that he has pled colorable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and I refer this case to the inmate mediation program.
ECF No. 1.
Background
A. Plaintiff's factual allegations
This is merely a summary of facts alleged in the complaint and should not be construed as findings of fact.
McCain was diagnosed with hydrocele in February 2021, when he was incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center (CCDC). The condition causes McCain's left testicle to swell to the “size of [his] fist.” The testicle also oozes puss “due to infection,” and McCain often experiences severe “pain and suffering.” Shortly after his diagnosis, McCain began receiving pain medication and antibiotics.
Although McCain refers to his medical condition as “hydrosil,” that appears to be a misspelling of hydrocele. ECF No. 1-1 at 3.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 3.
Id.
Id. at 5.
McCain was transferred to HDSP in December 2021. When he arrived, McCain explained his condition to a doctor, who told him that his condition was “in [his] medical records from CCDC.” Although McCain's condition persisted after his arrival at HDSP, he did not receive antibiotics or “anything for [his] pain.” So in mid-April 2022, McCain began submitting kites and emergency grievances seeking pain medication, antibiotics, and an appointment with a doctor. At this time, McCain's left testicle was “the size of a 20 oz bottle,” and he was experiencing severe pain.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 5, 10.
Id. at 10-16.
Id. at 10.
Despite submitting multiple kites and emergency grievances, McCain did not see a doctor until May 14, 2022. In the meantime, McCain received ibuprofen, which did nothing to alleviate the pain. Seeking assistance from the administration, McCain submitted two kites to Warden Calvin Johnson, charging HDSP officials with “medical neglect.” He also sent kites to Director of Nursing Sonya Carrillo and Director Charles Daniels, describing the “medical neglect” he was experiencing at HDSP.
Id. at 10-16.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 10, 12.
Id. at 13.
On the evening of May 14, 2022, McCain was taken to the infirmary, where he stayed for four days. A doctor saw him and prescribed oxycodone, which helped reduce the pain. Less than twenty-four hours later, however, a different doctor-Dr. Rives-discontinued the oxycodone and put McCain back on ibuprofen. Dr. Rives did not prescribe any antibiotics or run any tests to “see if anything was wrong with” McCain. Two days after he was discharged, McCain wrote a kite to the Director of Medical Services complaining that he did not receive antibiotics for his infection and that the only medication he received for his pain was ibuprofen, which did “not work.”
Id. at 16.
Id.
Id.
McCain spells this doctor's name as both Dr. Rivas and Dr. Rives. Id. at 3, 16. I use the latter spelling in this order.
Id.
Id. at 16-17.
McCain's condition did not improve after he left the infirmary, so he continued to submit kites and emergency grievances, including a kite to Carrillo stating that he “was still in a lot of pain” and the ibuprofen was not “doing anything for [him].” McCain likewise informed Dr. Rives that the ibuprofen “did not take [his] pain away,” but Dr. Rives said he did “not care” and “this [was] all [McCain was] getting.”
Id. at 17-18.
Id. at 18.
Id.
The pain became so severe that McCain sought medical attention by going on a four-day hunger strike. As a result, McCain was sent back to the infirmary on June 5, 2022. There, he was told he would receive antibiotics and “something other than” ibuprofen “for the pain.” He also learned that fluid would be drained from his testicle the next week. After he left the infirmary, McCain received Tylenol, naproxen, and antibiotics. But McCain's left testicle remained swollen, and he continued to experience pain, so he wrote more kites and emergency grievances.
Id. at 19-20.
Id. at 20.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 21-24.
McCain did not see a doctor again until June 22, 2022. The doctor drained “a lot of fluid” from McCain's left testicle. Although the procedure made things “a li[ttle] bit better,” the testicle remains swollen, McCain continues to experience pain, and he has yet to see a urologist.
Id. at 24.
Id.
Id.
B. Plaintiff's causes of action
Based on these events, McCain sues “Medical Doctors (HDSP),” Director of Nursing Sonya Carrillo, Warden Calvin Johnson, Director Charles Daniels, Dr. Rives, and John Doe Director of Medical Services. McCain asserts Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. He also seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
Id. at 1-3.
Id. at 3-5.
Id. at 9.
Discussion
A. Screening standard
Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity.In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. All or part of the complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner's claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact. This includes claims based on legal conclusions that are untenable, like claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist, as well as claims based on fanciful factual allegations or fantastic or delusional scenarios.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him or her to relief. In making this determination, the court takes all allegations of material fact as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, but a plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999).
See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996).
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); see also Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Id.
B. Analysis of claims
1. McCain states colorable Eighth Amendment claims.
A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when he acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of an inmate. “To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard-that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment-and a subjective standard-deliberate indifference.” The first prong requires “the plaintiff [to] show a serious medical need,” and that the “failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.”“Indifference may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” When a prisoner alleges that the delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he must show that the delay led to further injury.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994).
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012).
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Id.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference”).
A defendant is liable under § 1983 “only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.” “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under [§] 1983.”
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Id.
McCain states colorable claims against Carrillo, Johnson, Daniels, Dr. Rives, and the Director of Medical Services for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McCain identifies serious medical needs stemming from his hydrocele, a condition that causes his left testicle to become swollen and infected. McCain allegedly suffers from severe, chronic pain as a result of his condition. Thus, following his arrival at HDSP, he submitted multiple kites seeking pain medication, antibiotics, and an appointment with a doctor. He also submitted kites to Johnson, Carrillo, and Daniels, informing them of HDSP officials' failure to provide appropriate treatment. Yet McCain did not see a doctor until mid-May 2022-approximately one month after he began requesting medical attention for his hydrocele. In the meantime, the only medication McCain received was ibuprofen, which did nothing to relieve his pain.
When McCain finally saw a doctor, he received oxycodone, which provided some relief. But Dr. Rives discontinued the oxycodone and put McCain back on ibuprofen. Dr. Rives also failed to prescribe antibiotics, and he did not run any tests to “see if anything was wrong with” McCain. McCain subsequently wrote a kite to the Director of Medical Services complaining that he did not receive antibiotics for his infection, and that the only medication he received for his pain was ibuprofen, which did “not work.” And when McCain later told Dr. Rives that the ibuprofen was not alleviating his pain, Dr. Rives said he did “not care” and “this [was] all [McCain was] getting.” As of the filing of the complaint, McCain's testicle remains swollen, and he continues to experience severe pain.
Taken together, these allegations are sufficient to plead that Carrillo, Johnson, Daniels, Dr. Rives, and the Director of Medical Services knowingly ignored McCain's serious medical needs, causing further pain and suffering. McCain's Eighth Amendment claims will therefore proceed against Carrillo, Johnson, Daniels, Dr. Rives, and the Director of Medical Services when McCain discovers his identity.
Although the use of “Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored, flexibility is allowed in some cases where the identity of the parties cannot be known prior to filing a complaint but can subsequently be determined through discovery. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). If the true identity of the Director of Medical Services comes to light during discovery, McCain may move to substitute the true name of the Director of Medical Services to assert claims against him at that time.
2. McCain cannot sue “Medical Doctors (HDSP)” in this action.
McCain also names “Medical Doctors (HDSP)” as defendants. “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” A fictitious defendant such as “Medical Doctors (HDSP)” is not a “person” subject to § 1983 liability. So I dismiss the claims against “Medical Doctors (HDSP)” from this action with prejudice.
ECF No. 1-1 at 1.
Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012).
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
• FILE the complaint [ECF No. 1-1];
• SEND McCain a courtesy copy of the complaint [ECF No. 1-1];
• UPDATE the docket to reflect that the named defendants in this action are Sonya Carrillo, Calvin Johnson, Charles Daniels, and Dr. Rives; and
• ADD the Nevada Department of Corrections to the docket as an Interested Party and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE a copy of this order and a copy of McCain's complaint [ECF No. 1-1] on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada by adding the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to the interested party on the docket. This does not indicate acceptance of service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
• Defendants “Medical Doctors (HDSP)” are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice; and
• The Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs MAY PROCEED against defendants Carrillo, Johnson, Daniels, Dr. Rives, and the Director of Medical Services when McCain discovers his identity.
Given the nature of the claims that the Court has permitted to proceed, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED for 90 days to allow McCain and defendants an opportunity to settle their dispute before an answer is filed or the discovery process begins. During this 90-day stay period, no other pleadings or papers may be filed in this case, and the parties may not engage in any discovery. I refer this case to the Court's Inmate Early Mediation Program and will enter a subsequent order. Regardless, on or before 90 days from the date this order is entered, the Office of the Attorney General must file the report form attached to this order regarding the results of the 90-day stay, even if a stipulation for dismissal is entered before the end of the stay. If the parties proceed with this action, the Court will then issue an order setting a date for defendants to file an answer or other response. Following the filing of an answer, the Court will issue a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
“Settlement” may or may not include payment of money damages. It also may or may not include an agreement to resolve plaintiff's issues differently. A compromise agreement is one in which neither party is completely satisfied with the result, but both have given something up and both have obtained something in return.
If the case does not settle, McCain will be required to pay the full $350.00 filing fee. This fee cannot be waived. I defer my decision on the application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] until after the mediation process. If McCain is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, he will be permitted to pay the fee in installments from his prison trust account; if not, the $350.00 filing fee plus the $52 administrative fee, for a total of $402, will be due immediately.
If any party seeks to have this case excluded from the inmate mediation program, that party will file a “motion to exclude case from mediation” no later than 21 days prior to the date set for mediation. The responding party will have 7 days to file a response. No reply will be filed. Thereafter, the Court will issue an order, set the matter for hearing, or both. If McCain needs an interpreter to participate in the mediation program, he will file a notice identifying the interpretation language and the need for the interpreter within 30 days from the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Attorney General's Office must advise the Court within 21 days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will enter a limited notice of appearance on behalf of Interested Party for the purpose of participation in the Early Mediation Program. No defenses or objections, including lack of service, will be waived because of the filing of the limited notice of appearance.