Martinez v. Gamboa

Background

Ronald F. Martinez, identified in the opinion as a prisoner and proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court had previously screened his original complaint and allowed a deliberate-indifference claim to proceed, then granted leave to amend. This order screened Martinez’s First Amended Complaint.

Martinez alleged that he noticed a lesion on his left nostril in June 2016 and submitted health requests. In January 2017, dermatologist Dr. Gordon diagnosed the lesion as seborrheic keratosis after a remote video consultation. Martinez questioned the diagnosis, noted his family history of skin cancer, and requested a second opinion. A separate physician, Dr. Abraham, requested a dermatology consultation for biopsy or treatment of a lesion on Martinez’s left temple; the court explained that Dr. Gamboa approved a referral for further evaluation, not a biopsy.

Dr. Gordon performed cryotherapy, or freezing treatment, on lesions on Martinez’s nose and left temple in February 2017. The temple lesion resolved and the nose lesion partially resolved. Martinez later asked Dr. Gamboa for a biopsy of the remaining nose lesion. Dr. Gamboa performed a second cryotherapy procedure and allegedly said he would consider a biopsy if it did not work. After the lesion remained, Dr. Hack ordered a biopsy. Martinez alleged that Dr. Gamboa replaced Dr. Hack’s biopsy request with a request for a third cryotherapy treatment and misled Martinez about what had been denied. Dr. Bright denied the request for the third cryotherapy treatment.

Martinez continued requesting a biopsy. After he was transferred to Corcoran State Prison in July 2018, medical staff arranged a dermatology appointment, and a dermatologist immediately ordered a biopsy. The biopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma, and the lesion was removed.

Screening Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or official. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court applies a pleading standard requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, and it reads pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

For a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law. For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, the plaintiff must allege both a sufficiently serious medical need and deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires that the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. Mere negligence or a disagreement over medical treatment is not enough.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed Martinez’s claims against Drs. Gordon and Hrobko. Both dermatologists independently diagnosed the lesions as seborrheic keratosis and prescribed cryotherapy before any doctor had ordered a biopsy. The court noted that the treatment resolved the temple lesion and partially resolved the nose lesion, and concluded that these allegations did not show deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the claim against Dr. Hack because, according to Martinez’s allegations, Hack ordered the biopsy Martinez wanted. The alleged substitution of a different request was attributed to Gamboa and did not show wrongdoing or negligence by Hack.

The court dismissed the claim against Dr. Bright because the complaint did not allege that Bright ever saw a request for a biopsy. The allegations instead suggested that Bright only reviewed and denied Gamboa’s request for a third cryotherapy procedure.

The court concluded that Martinez stated a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Gamboa. The court relied on allegations that Gamboa knew the lesion had not fully resolved, knew of Martinez’s family history of skin cancer, promised to consider a biopsy if cryotherapy failed, substituted a third-cryotherapy request for Hack’s biopsy request, and concealed that the biopsy request had not been reviewed by Bright. If believed, the court said, these allegations suggested that Gamboa was deliberately indifferent to Martinez’s serious medical need for a biopsy.

Other Motions and Case Schedule

The court granted defense counsel’s motion for a nunc pro tunc extension of time to serve a discovery response. It terminated Martinez’s first extension motion, granted Martinez’s motion to withdraw that request, and denied as moot a second extension motion received after Martinez had already filed the amended complaint.

The court granted both parties’ motions to screen the First Amended Complaint. The court also stated that it had no jurisdiction to order Corcoran State Prison to return property allegedly confiscated while Martinez was held there, and noted that Martinez had since been transferred. The excerpt does not state a separate express disposition verb for that property request.

The court ordered Gamboa to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion by June 2, 2023, unless he informed the court that summary judgment was unavailable. Martinez’s opposition was due June 30, 2023, and Gamboa’s reply was due July 14, 2023. The court also provided Martinez with notices about summary judgment, discovery, serving court filings on defense counsel, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 69, 71, 73, 75, 78, and 89.