(PC) Edin Adgusto Chacon v. Tate, 1:12-cv-00989

Background

Pro se prisoner Edin A. Chacon filed this § 1983 civil-rights suit alleging inadequate/incorrect medical treatment for carpal tunnel and Hepatitis C while housed at California Correctional Institution (CCI); he amended his complaint on November 13, 2012.
Plaintiff alleged defendants (several prison medical staff and administrators) prescribed Neurontin despite HCV/liver risk, refused orthopedist-ordered splint/injections, increased dosages, and denied HCV therapy; he alleges ongoing adverse effects and at least one fall from an upper bunk.
Plaintiff asserted claims for First Amendment retaliation (against Dr. Tate), Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (against Tate, Lee, Grimm, Hill, Le, Sourehnissani), and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process (against several medical staff); he sought damages.
Plaintiff moved to stay the case pending parole and residency; the anticipated parole date passed, so the Court denied the stay as moot.
The magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concluded Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for retaliation (Tate) and deliberate indifference (Tate, Lee, Grimm, Hill, Le, Sourehnissani), but did not state a Fourteenth Amendment claim and failed to state claims against supervisory reviewers Shiesha and Joaquin.
The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either file an amended complaint curing deficiencies or notify the Court he will proceed only on the cognizable claims; otherwise the action would be dismissed for failure to obey court order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to stay pending parole/residency	Chacon asked for 30-day stay to regain legal materials after parole/transfer	Moot because parole date passed and no action had been taken meanwhile	Denied as moot
First Amendment retaliation (Tate)	Tate denied or delayed treatment and withheld HCV therapy in retaliation for Chacon's medical appeals	Actions were legitimate penological/medical decisions, not retaliatory	Pleaded a cognizable retaliation claim against Tate
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (medical staff)	Medical staff knowingly prescribed/continued harmful treatment (Neurontin), ignored orthopedist orders, refused alternatives and HCV therapy despite serious needs	Defendants acted pursuant to medical judgment; absence of deliberate indifference; some conduct was nonactionable medical disagreement	Pleaded cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Tate, Lee, Grimm, Hill, Le, Sourehnissani; claims against Shiesha and Joaquin dismissed
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process (body integrity/refusal)	Chacon alleges unjustified intrusion and coerced medication amounting to due process violation	Where an explicit constitutional amendment applies (Eighth), substantive due process is not the proper vehicle	Fourteenth Amendment claim dismissed as duplicative of Eighth Amendment claim

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677 (courts need not indulge unwarranted inferences)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard in prison medical cases)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of inmate First Amendment retaliation claim)
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (retaliation framework affirmed)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (retaliation pleading and causation principles)
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 (plaintiff must plead and prove absence of legitimate penological goals)
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011 (deliberate indifference requires awareness of serious need and inadequate response)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (medical malpractice insufficient; high standard for deliberate indifference)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend for pro se plaintiffs)
Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868 (substantive due process claims displaced where specific amendment applies)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (due process principles)
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (prison grievance-review alone does not create § 1983 liability)