Carlos Alfredo Melara v. Unknown

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Initially, it is not clear to the Court under what theory Plaintiff is proceeding or what rights he claims have been violated by Defendants. Recognizing that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him an opportunity to explain why the Complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has until August 17, 2017, to file his brief. See Order for details. (dml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.
Title

EDCV 17-485-PA (PJW)

Date

July 24, 2017

Carlos Alfredo Melara v. Unknown

Present: The Honorable

Patrick J. Walsh, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Martinez

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed

Before the Court is a civil rights complaint filed by Plaintiff, currently confined at the Praireland
ICE Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, against “unknown” Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, while
confined at USP-Victorville in 2014 through 2016, he received negligent medical care and treatment. In
particular, he claims that he was taken to a hospital by some officers and was injected with medication
and then given an MRI. He claims that when he asked the officers what they were doing, they told him
to be quiet. A few days after the MRI, discolorations appeared on his head and face (red and blue spots),
and he felt numbness and pain in his right leg. (Complaint at 1-3.) He seeks damages against the
unnamed Defendants for malpractice. (Complaint at 4.) After screening the Complaint, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has not and likely cannot state a cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court will, however, allow Plaintiff the
opportunity to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice at this stage.
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. § 1915(e). In evaluating whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court accepts as true the factual
allegations contained in the Complaint 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 Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th
Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Initially, it is not clear to the Court under what theory Plaintiff is proceeding or what rights he
claims have been violated by Defendants. 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). 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,
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

429 U.S. 97, 104-07 (1976); Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (“Estelle establishes that deliberate
indifference entails something more than mere negligence . . . .”).
Mere medical malpractice, even if grossly negligent, does not give rise to a civil rights claim.
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). “Medical malpractice does not become a
constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
The crux of Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendants acted negligently or committed medical
malpractice when they injected him with a dye, apparently, and performed an MRI on him. Assuming,
arguendo, that Plaintiff is correct, he has not and cannot state a constitutional claim against Defendants
based on negligence. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the
Eighth Amendment.”); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding prison officials
were not deliberately indifferent where specialist recommended surgery, but subsequent treating
physicians concluded surgery was unnecessary); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir.
2012) (“Dr. Schuster’s alleged failure was negligent misdiagnosis, or a disagreement with Dr. Rotman.
Therefore, the allegations are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference by Dr. Schuster.”). Further,
it does not appear that anything Plaintiff can say or do can cure the defects in his Complaint--particularly
in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint is verified, thus locking him into his claim that the conduct
he complains of constituted negligence or malpractice. However, recognizing that Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the Court will allow him an opportunity to explain why the Complaint should not be dismissed
with prejudice. Plaintiff has until August 17, 2017, to file his brief. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file
on time may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 41.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

im

Page 2 of 2