Chavez v. Santa Clara County Regional Center

Filing 8

ORDER REOPENING CASE; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/20/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 10/21/11*

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

RAUL RIVERA CHAVEZ,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 11-3178 RS (PR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

v.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGIONAL CENTER,
Defendant.
/

18
19

INTRODUCTION

20

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

21

prisoner. The action was dismissed owing to plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application

22

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), or pay the filing fee of $350.00, within 30 days.

23

Plaintiff now has submitted a complete IFP application. Accordingly, the action is hereby

24

REOPENED. The order of dismissal (Docket No. 4), and the judgment (Docket No. 5), are

25

hereby VACATED. The Clerk is directed to reopen the action. The Court now reviews the

26

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

27
28
No. C 11-3178 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

DISCUSSION

1
2

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

3
4

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

5

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

6

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

7

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

8

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

9

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

12

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

13

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

14

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

15

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

16

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

17

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

18

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

19

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

20

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

21

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

22

B.

23

(1)
(2)

Legal Claims
Plaintiff claims that defendants, medical staff at the Adult Custody Health Services

24

section of the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System, gave him “negligent” medical

25

care. Plaintiff claims in April 2011, he reported to the medical clinic with an eye abrasion

26

plaintiff caused when he rubbed a bit of dirt out of his eye. He claims that the eyedrops and

27

ointment prescribed and administered by defendants caused his condition to worsen, resulting

28
No. C 11-3178 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

2

1
2

in discoloration of the eye, as well as foggy vision and blindness.
To succeed on a claim that an inmate received constitutionally inadequate medical
care, the inmate must plead and prove that a prison official has acted with deliberate

4

indifference. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a

5

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to

6

abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not

7

only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

8

serious harm exists,” but “must also draw the inference.” Id. Consequently, in order for

9

deliberate indifference to be established, there must exist both a purposeful act or failure to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

act on the part of the defendant and harm resulting therefrom. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974

11

F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The alleged facts

13

show that plaintiff sought treatment for his eye, and defendants gave him some appropriate

14

treatment. Such alleged facts do not raise an inference, let alone state a claim, that

15

defendants knew of and ignored a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. Furthermore,

16

plaintiff’s disagreement with the sort of treatment he received does not state a claim for

17

relief. A difference of opinion between a prisoner patient and a medical doctor, is not

18

enough to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

19

1051, 1058–60 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff must show that the treatment was “medically

20

unacceptable under the circumstances” and that defendants embarked on this course in

21

“conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Id. Plaintiff has made no

22

such showing here. Rather, plaintiff has described actions that constitute at worst negligence

23

or gross negligence, neither of which constitutes deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511

24

U.S. at 835–36 & n.4.

25

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an

26

amended complaint within 30 days from the date this order is filed. The first amended

27

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (11-3178 RS

28
No. C 11-3178 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

3

1

(PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

2

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his

3

first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he

4

wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may

5

not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended

6

complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further

7

notice to plaintiff. In the amended complaint, plaintiff must allege specific facts stating a

8

claim under § 1983.
It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

11

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

12

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 20, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 11-3178 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

4