West v. Claybank Jail Dental et al
Filing
12
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/7/2018 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for filure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMIE PAULETTE WEST,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
No. 2:18-CV-0317-MCE-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CLAYBANK JAIL DENTAL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
26
This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
1
1
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied
2
if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon
3
which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must
4
allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support
5
the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
6
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
7
and conclusory.
8
9
Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) the Claybank Jail in Solano
County; (2) Dr. Lue, a dentist at the Claybank Jail; and (3) Claybank Jail “medical staff.”
10
Plaintiff claims that defendants were negligent and committed malpractice with respect to dental
11
treatment.
12
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the
13
prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel
14
and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,
15
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts
16
of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102
17
(1976). Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give rise to a
18
claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a difference of
19
opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate course of
20
treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d
21
330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Given this authority, the court finds that plaintiff’s medical malpractice
22
claim is not cognizable.
23
Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
24
cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
25
the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
26
///
2
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
4
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
7
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
8
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
10
11
12
DATED: August 7, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?