Castillo v. Borla

Background

Gonzalo Castillo, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that several defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Castillo alleged that Defendant Lauritzen, an ophthalmologist, performed three laser surgeries and five traditional surgeries on his eye or eyes between May 2020 and November 2022. He said the surgeries did not resolve his vision problems or pain and implied that his condition worsened. After the fifth surgery, he requested treatment from a different ophthalmologist. A new ophthalmologist later performed two additional surgeries and found that the retina in Castillo’s left eye was entirely detached and torn in multiple places.

Castillo’s claims against Brignell, Ottenbacher, and Posson appeared to concern their involvement in allowing Lauritzen to continue treating him or reviewing his health-care grievances. His claim against Edward Borla was based only on Borla’s supervisory position as warden.

Screening standard

Because Castillo was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read pro se pleadings liberally.

To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on medical care, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious medical need and that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court explained that negligence or medical malpractice, by itself, does not establish deliberate indifference.

Claims against the medical defendants

As to Lauritzen, the court found that Castillo had described the surgeries as “botched operations and negligence.” The court held that this was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. It explained that Castillo would need to allege facts showing that Lauritzen knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Castillo’s health or safety. The court noted that refusing a necessary surgery or insisting on a medically contraindicated surgery might satisfy that standard, while a mistake during a difficult surgery would not.

As to Brignell, the court found that Castillo did not report continuing vision problems until after his second surgery and had a follow-up appointment with Lauritzen three days later. The court stated that the information given to Brignell did not show that Castillo was uncomfortable being treated by Lauritzen and appeared to permit Brignell to rely on an ophthalmologist. The court also noted that Castillo did not report his desire to stop treatment by Lauritzen until November 8, 2022, and that the complaint indicated his concerns were addressed because Lauritzen was later removed and a new ophthalmologist was appointed. The court nevertheless allowed Castillo to amend if he could truthfully add facts supporting a claim against Brignell.

As to Ottenbacher, the court found that the complaint identified Ottenbacher as an ophthalmologist at the facility but did not describe any interaction between Ottenbacher and Castillo. The court allowed amendment because additional truthful facts might show greater involvement.

As to Posson, the court found that Posson reviewed and denied Castillo’s health-care grievances after Lauritzen had been removed and a new ophthalmologist had been appointed. The court held that reviewing or denying a grievance, without an allegation that the review caused additional harm or contributed to the underlying violation, did not state a constitutional claim. The court nevertheless allowed Castillo to amend if he could truthfully provide facts supporting a claim against Posson.

Claim against Borla

The complaint’s only allegation against Borla was that he was the facility’s warden. The court held that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely for another official’s actions or omissions. Because Castillo did not identify any way Borla caused his injury, and the court could not discern how a warden would be responsible for Castillo’s vision care based on the allegations, it dismissed the claim against Borla without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court held that the complaint stated no cognizable claim. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in part. Castillo could amend claims against Lauritzen, Bridgnell, Ottenbacher, and Posson, but could not amend the claim against Borla. The amended complaint was due within 35 days of the order. The clerk was directed to amend the caption to show that Borla had been dismissed without leave to amend.

The court also granted Castillo’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without paying the entire filing fee at the outset. It assessed an initial partial filing fee of $88.00 and provided for later installment payments from his prison trust account.