(PC) Mora v. Petras
2:20-cv-00749-DAD-JDP
E.D. Cal.May 5, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Ruben Edward Mora, a state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting constitutional claims arising from medical care at California Medical Facility (CMF).
- Mora arrived at CMF on July 1, 2019 and was seen by Dr. Ognjen Petras; Mora told Petras he is diabetic and needs special shoes and requested review of prior medical records and referral to a foot specialist.
- Petras declined to review records, refused referral, and allegedly denied Mora had an infection despite repeated requests over ~3 weeks.
- Mora developed an infection and on September 20, 2019 his right big toe was amputated by outside surgeon Dr. Kolakowski; Mora alleges Kolakowski prescribed an insufficient antibiotic course and failed to fully inform him of risks.
- Mora also named Lori Austin (CMF CEO, appeals office) alleging mishandling/covering up complaints; he requested in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel.
- The court granted IFP, denied appointment of counsel, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, found a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Petras, and dismissed claims against Kolakowski and Austin with leave to amend; Mora must elect to proceed or amend within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Mora is indigent and qualifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) | N/A (court evaluates statutory criteria) | IFP granted; filing fee to be collected under §1915(b) |
| Screening / Rule 8 and plausibility | Facts show deliberate indifference by Petras; pleading sufficient for screening | Complaint must meet Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards | Court applied §1915A and Twombly/Iqbal standards and screened the complaint |
| Eighth Amendment claim vs. Petras | Petras ignored records, refused referral, delayed care leading to infection and amputation | Denial not explicitly recorded; defendants may argue disagreement about necessity/timing of treatment | Court found a plausible deliberate-indifference claim against Petras and allowed it to proceed |
| Medical care vs. Dr. Kolakowski | Kolakowski prescribed inadequate antibiotics and failed to inform of bone-infection risks before amputation | Treatment choice and informed-consent dispute; difference of medical opinion | Claims against Kolakowski dismissed at screening (mostly illegible; allegation reflects disagreement over treatment) |
| Grievance/administrative handling vs. Austin | Austin mishandled appeals and covered up Petras’ conduct | A prison grievance procedure has no constitutional mandate; handling appeals is not a basis for § 1983 liability | Claim against Austin dismissed (no constitutional right to particular grievance procedures) |
| Appointment of counsel | Mora requested counsel due to complexity / lack of counsel | Appointment requires exceptional circumstances (likelihood of success and inability to articulate claims) | Request denied; court found no exceptional circumstances at screening |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content to state plausible claim)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints construed liberally at pleading stage)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (complaint allegations to be accepted as true for screening)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (difference of medical opinion not an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337 (medical judgment/disagreement does not equal constitutional violation)
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (no constitutional right to particular grievance procedures)
- Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (grievance procedure is procedural only; not a substantive right)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (plaintiff may not add unrelated claims in an amended complaint)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (personal participation required for § 1983 liability)
- Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (factors for appointing counsel to indigent civil litigant)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (appointment-of-counsel discussion)
- Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85 (appointment-of-counsel discussion)