(PC) Davis v. Bobbla
2:22-cv-01658
E.D. Cal.Mar 2, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Maurice D. Davis (aka Davis-Rogers) is a state prisoner at California State Prison–Sacramento and sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Eighth Amendment medical indifference.
- He alleges he was approved for lumbar spine surgery in 2010 but was denied surgery for 12 years and treated with NSAIDs and Tylenol instead; later told sustained NSAID use damaged his kidneys and contributed to CKD, liver damage, and worsening L3-4/L4-5 stenosis.
- The sole named defendant is CSP-SAC Chief Medical Executive Manjala Bobbla; the complaint alleges negligence and requests monetary damages for Eighth Amendment violations.
- Plaintiff filed to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and moved for appointment of counsel.
- The court granted IFP (assessed filing fee procedures), denied appointment of counsel without prejudice, and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim but granted leave to amend (30 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP application | Davis is indigent and seeks IFP status | No opposing position presented | IFP granted; initial partial fee and monthly collection ordered |
| Appointment of counsel | Davis cannot afford counsel, limited law access, imprisonment inhibits litigation | No opposing position presented | Denied without prejudice — no exceptional circumstances shown |
| Eighth Amendment medical claim (delay/denial of surgery & medication harm) | Delay/denial of surgery and sustained NSAID use caused spine deterioration and organ damage — deliberate indifference | Not specifically addressed; court analyzed adequacy under deliberate indifference standard | Complaint potentially states a cognizable injury but insufficiently pleaded against a defendant; dismissed for failure to state claim with leave to amend |
| Supervisor liability / personal participation | Allegations of negligence by CDCR medical staff and Bobbla as chief medical executive | No facts tying Bobbla to the alleged constitutional deprivation | Dismissed as pleaded — supervisory liability requires specific allegations of personal involvement; plaintiff must plead how each defendant caused deprivation |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (objective seriousness and subjective knowledge/disregard prongs)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (two elements of an Eighth Amendment medical claim)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (medical malpractice or differences of opinion do not establish deliberate indifference)
- Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere negligence insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (standard for frivolous claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be more than formulaic; plausibility standard)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard for exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel)