(PC) Travis v. Gibson
1:14-cv-00074
E.D. Cal.Mar 11, 2016Background
- Plaintiff William Travis, a state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 action alleging food/package tampering at CSP‑Corcoran caused poisoning and medical problems and that medical and correctional staff failed to diagnose/treat or intervened/retaliated.
- Plaintiff sued medical providers (Yu, Clark, Rouch, Convalecer, Monfore, et al.) and correctional staff (Davey, Hicks, Rodriguez, Melgar, Marin, Castillo, Godina, Casey).
- Records show examinations, x‑rays, EKGs, antibiotics, basic labs, and an attempted arsenic test; medical records contradicted some of plaintiff’s assertions of abnormal tests.
- Plaintiff claimed denial of adequate medical care (Eighth Amendment), failure to protect (Eighth Amendment), and retaliation (First Amendment); he sought injunctive relief including toxicology testing and an order to stop alleged tampering.
- Court previously dismissed earlier complaints with leave to amend; after screening the Second Amended Complaint the court found the medical‑care allegations reflected disagreement over treatment, not deliberate indifference, and that newly added claims/defendants were improper.
- Court denied the preliminary injunction, dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim under § 1983, directed entry of judgment, and counted the dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment – inadequate medical care | Travis: staff failed to diagnose/treat poisoning and ordered insufficient testing (wants full toxicology/outside testing) | Medical defendants: provided examinations, imaging, basic labs, antibiotics; plaintiff disagrees with treatment choice | Dismissed — records show treatment and plaintiff’s disagreement with care does not show deliberate indifference |
| Eighth Amendment – failure to protect / intervention for alleged poisoning | Travis: correctional staff poisoned him or allowed poisoning and failed to intervene | Defendants: conclusory allegations lacking factual support; prior orders limited scope to medical care claims | Dismissed — insufficient factual support and adding unrelated claims/defendants not allowed |
| First Amendment – retaliation (TV seizure) | Travis: Melgar seized/destroyed TV in retaliation for filing 602 appeals | Defendants: seizure/disciplinary actions not shown to be retaliatory with causation or adverse action legally protected | Dismissed — claim insufficiently pleaded in the context of this complaint |
| Preliminary injunction for testing and to stop tampering | Travis: immediate injunctive relief needed to stop ongoing poisoning and obtain independent testing | Defendants: court lacks jurisdiction because no cognizable § 1983 claim; injunction seeks relief outside scope of proceeding | Denied — court dismissed action and therefore declined to grant injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted for pleading plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (serious medical need and deliberate indifference elements)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (prisoner medical‑care claim standards)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (personal participation requirement under § 1983)
- Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062 (causal connection and supervisory liability)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (causal link pleading requirements)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (plaintiff may not add unrelated claims/defendants in same suit)
- Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730 (section 1983 as procedural vehicle)
- Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (dismissal as a strike under § 1915(g))