(PC) Duran v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2:14-cv-01080

Background

Plaintiff Jason Duran, a pro se incarcerated person, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations for denial of sex-offender treatment while housed at Avenal State Prison.
Defendants named: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Warden of Avenal State Prison, the CDCR Director, and a treating clinician identified as Dr. Smith.
Plaintiff alleges he requested sex-offender treatment but was told no such program existed, while other psychological disorders received treatment.
The district court previously dismissed the original complaint for vagueness and granted leave to amend; an amended complaint was filed and is now before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court evaluated whether the allegations plausibly show a sufficiently serious mental health need and deliberate indifference by defendants to support an Eighth Amendment claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of sex-offender treatment states an Eighth Amendment claim	Duran asserts he sought treatment and was denied because no program existed	Defendants implicitly argue absence of a duty because no serious mental health diagnosis alleged	Dismissed: plaintiff fails to allege a serious mental illness or deliberate indifference; leave to amend granted
Whether a conviction for a sex offense alone establishes a serious mental health need	Duran relies on his conviction as basis for need	Conviction alone does not equal a diagnosed psychological disorder requiring treatment	Held: conviction is not a substitute for a medical diagnosis; no claim shown
Whether vague/conclusory pleading suffices under Rule 8 and § 1915A screening	Duran's amended complaint repeats generalized allegations of denial	Court finds allegations too vague to identify specific overt acts by named defendants	Held: complaint dismissed for lacking particularity; court invites a complete amended complaint
Whether failure to treat absent diagnosis can constitute deliberate indifference	Duran contends denial of treatment equals deliberate indifference	Court applies established deliberate indifference standard requiring serious medical need and culpable state of mind	Held: cannot show deliberate indifference without a sufficiently serious condition and facts showing culpable state of mind

Key Cases Cited

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (Eighth Amendment scrutiny of prison conditions)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard requires culpable state of mind)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (prison conditions may be restrictive but not cruel)
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (prisoners entitled to medical care and safety)
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (analysis of deliberate indifference in medical care cases)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (pleading standards for pro se prisoners; leave to amend rule)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (differences of medical opinion do not state Eighth Amendment claims)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (Rule 8 pleading requirements)
Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (fair notice standard under Rule 8)
Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540 (definition of serious medical need)
Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198 (deference not required for medical care decisions in Eighth Amendment review)
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 (amended complaint supersedes original)
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (pleading requirement to show deprivation of constitutional rights)
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164 (need to link defendants to alleged deprivations)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (affirmative link required between defendant and constitutional violation)
Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (Rule 8 noncompliance may justify dismissal)