Purvis v. California Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitations et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/7/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER PURVIS, AD2482,
Plaintiff(s),

12
vs.

13
14
15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-3929 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

17
Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), has filed a pro se

18
19

complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison doctors did

20

not provide him with proper medical care in connection with a hernia operation.

21

Plaintiff specifically alleges that he noticed a deformity in his penis after the

22

operation and speculates that the deformity was caused by the doctors' clamping

23

something on his penis to stop him from urinating during the procedure.
DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

27

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

28

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

1

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

2

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

3

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

4

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

5

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

6

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

7

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

8

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

9

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

10
11

B.

Legal Claims
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth

12

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v.

13

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A "serious medical need" exists if the failure

14

to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the

15

"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,

16

1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other

17

grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.

18

1997) (en banc). A prison official is "deliberately indifferent" if he knows that a

19

prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing

20

to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

21

(1994).

22

Neither negligence nor gross negligence warrant liability under the Eighth

23

Amendment. Id. at 835-36 & n4. An "official's failure to alleviate a significant

24

risk that he should have perceived but did not, . . . cannot under our cases be

25

condemned as the infliction of punishment." Id. at 838. Instead, "the official's

26

conduct must have been 'wanton,' which turns not upon its effect on the prisoner,

27
28

2

1

but rather, upon the constraints facing the official." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d

2

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03

3

(1991)). Prison officials violate their constitutional obligation only by

4

"intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care." Estelle, 429 U.S. at

5

104-05.

6

Unfortunately for plaintiff, his allegations of improper medical care in

7

connection with his hernia operation amount to no more than a possible claim for

8

medical malpractice not cognizable under § 1983. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391

9

F.3d 1051, 1058, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (medical malpractice insufficient to

10

make out violation of 8th Amendment); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744

11

(9th Cir. 2002) (same). There is no indication whatsoever that the doctors knew

12

that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by

13

failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

14
15

To whatever extent plaintiff may have a claim for medical malpractice, he
must pursue such claim in the state courts.

16
17
18
19

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to
state claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

20

pending motions as moot, and close the file.

21

SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: Dec. 7, 2011

23

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.11\Purvis, C.11-3929.dismissal.wpd

27
28

3