The opinion
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 18-2001-SVW (PJW) Date November 25, 2019
Title Michael David Hemingway v. CSP-LAC, et al.
Present: The Honorable Patrick J. Walsh, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Isabel Martinez None None
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present None Present
Proceedings: Screening of Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 24.)
Before the Court is a Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff against Defendant medical
staff at California State Prison-Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) including the Head of Psychiatry,
Primary Psychiatrist, Head Doctor (M.D.), Primary Doctor (M.D.), Primary Case Manager, and Nurse
Aukward. (Doc. No. 24 at 3-4.1) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical condition and failed to review his medical records and failed to provide him with his
prescription psychiatric medications in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) He
seeks monetary relief. (Doc. No. 24 at 6.2)
The Court is required to screen pro se complaints brought by prisoners and dismiss claims that,
among other things, are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b)(1). In determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts as true
the factual allegations contained in the FAC and views all inferences in a light most favorable to him.
See Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court does not, however, “accept as true
allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the Court construes the FAC liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
In his latest filing, Plaintiff alleges that when he arrived at CSP-LAC all of his psychiatric and
pain medications were taken away without review of his medical files or any consultation with him.
(Doc. No. 24 at 5.) He claims that his previous facility provided him with psychiatric and pain
medications and that he was “stable.” (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) He alleges that Nurse Aukward was
“purposely, disdainfully, and deliberate[ly] ignoring” his medical issues and failed to report them to his
respective doctors, overcharged him for medical visits that did not occur, and was verbally abusive
towards him. (Doc. No. 24 at 4.)
1 The Court uses the page numbers inserted on the Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) by the
electronic docketing system.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege that officials were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
2006). Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere
with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.”
Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160,
1165 (9th Cir. 1999). A medical care provider, however, is only liable for denying a prisoner needed
medical care if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The conduct must be purposeful and substantial; negligence,
inadvertence, or differences in medical judgment or opinion do not rise to the level of deliberate
indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-07 (1976).
Plaintiff’s allegations against Nurse Aukward, that she ignored his medical issues and failed to
report them to his doctors, arguably states a deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiff, however, fails to
allege facts explaining his interactions with the unidentified Defendant psychiatrists and doctors (i.e.,
when he treated with them, whether he discussed his mental health issues with them, including his need
for psychiatric and pain medications, and whether they knew of and deliberately disregarded any risks to
his health). (Doc. No. 24 at 3-5.) Without more, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Head of
Psychiatry, Primary Psychiatrist, Head Doctor, Primary Doctor, and Primary Case Worker fail to state a
deliberate indifference claim. In addition, the United States Marshal cannot serve unidentified
psychiatrists or doctors. Plaintiff should obtain his medical records from CSP-LAC and determine the
names of the individuals responsible for his care at CSP-LAC. Once Plaintiff obtains his medical records
and determines who these people are, he can fill in their names in a Fifth Amended Complaint (a blank
complaint form is attached) and file it. Thereafter, the Court will order the U.S. Marshal to serve the
Defendants.
Plaintiff also alleges that he warned Defendants several times that due to his mental instability
caused by the deprivation of his medications, his transgender cellmate’s safety would be in jeopardy.
(Doc. No. 24 at 5.) According to Plaintiff, he and his cellmate made requests to have the prison staff
transfer them to different cells, but the requests were “ignored” and “scoffed at” by prison staff. (Doc.
No. 24 at 5.) To the extent Plaintiff wishes to bring a claim for the injuries he inflicted upon his
cellmate, this claim is without merit. Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against these Defendants
under the Prison Rape Elimination Act because no such cause of action exists. See Porter v. Jennings,
2012 WL 1434986 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012) (explaining that there is nothing in the Prison Rape
Elimination Act to indicate that it created a private right of action, enforceable under § 1983).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to
amend. No later than December 17, 2019, Plaintiff may file a Fifth Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff
amends, he must include all of his claims against each Defendant. In doing so, he is reminded to provide
a short, plain, statement of his claims: what each Defendant did, what each one is being sued for, and a
brief statement of the facts to support those claims. If Plaintiff fails to file a Fifth Amended Complaint
by then, the Court will order the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant Nurse Aukward and the case will
proceed against only her.