(PC) Garbarini v. Mendivil
1:17-cv-00351
E.D. Cal.Feb 22, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Garbarini, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued CDCR medical staff at Corcoran State Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate treatment of chronic pain.
- Medical conditions: non-repairable massive right rotator cuff tear, degenerative disc disease, and progressive right-knee arthritis; prior treatment included a cortisone injection and ongoing use of an ace wrap/knee brace.
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested treatment stronger than ibuprofen from Nurse Mendivil, Dr. R. Gill, and PA C. Ogbuehi; Mendivil and Gill denied stronger medication, and Ogbuehi declined to address pain at a visit limited to labs/ace wrap.
- Plaintiff filed multiple inmate appeals; Appeals Coordinator U. Williams and reviewer C. McCabe cancelled or responded that appeals were duplicative or that issues were addressed.
- District court screened the First Amended Complaint and concluded Plaintiff stated serious medical needs but failed to plead deliberate indifference; claims based on handling of appeals also fail as a matter of law. Court recommended dismissal with prejudice and application of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) three‑strikes rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial/limitation of pain treatment violated the Eighth Amendment | Garbarini alleges defendants knowingly refused effective treatment and stronger analgesics, forcing him to endure severe chronic pain | Medical staff provided ibuprofen, evaluated him, and chose a course of treatment; visits occurred and some encounters addressed other scheduled issues | Dismissed: plaintiff has serious medical needs but alleges at most a disagreement with medical judgment; no deliberate indifference shown |
| Whether denial/mishandling of inmate appeals gives rise to § 1983 liability | Garbarini contends McCabe and Williams improperly canceled or mishandled appeals, denying administrative relief | Defendants argue processing or ruling on grievances is not an actionable constitutional violation | Dismissed: grievance processing alone does not create § 1983 liability |
| Whether leave to amend should be further granted | Garbarini sought to cure defects via First Amended Complaint | Defendants implicitly argue pleading is deficient; court previously afforded leave to amend | Dismissed with prejudice: court finds defects incurable after two complaints; recommends case closed and strike counted under § 1915(g) |
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 pleading standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (prisoner Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (Ninth Circuit application of deliberate indifference test)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (serious medical need and deliberate indifference framework)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (deliberate indifference is a high standard; distinguishes negligence)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective awareness component of deliberate indifference)
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure)
- Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (grievance-review actions generally not basis for § 1983 liability)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (officials who merely rule on grievances are not liable for underlying violations)