Wright

Filing 13

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REOPEN ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/7/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 5/7/12*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

CHRISTOPHER LANS WRIGHT,

13

Plaintiff,

14

No. C 11-6317 RS (PR)
ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

v.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
16 et al.,
15

17

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
REOPEN THE ACTION

Defendant.
/

18
19
20

INTRODUCTION
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 because plaintiff failed to file a complete application to

22

proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. Plaintiff has now filed both documents, which

23

the Court construes as containing a motion to reopen. Accordingly, the order of dismissal

24

(Docket No. 8) and the judgment (Docket No. 9) are hereby VACATED, and the action is

25

REOPENED. 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 11-6317 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: (1)

19

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

20

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

Legal Claims
It appears that plaintiff claims that prison staff gave him inadequate medical treatment.

24

His allegations, however, do not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim under §

25

1983. For example, plaintiff alleges that he has diabetes, in addition to eye and foot

26

problems. He has not, however, described what exactly his eye and foot problems are,

27

whether they and his diabetes present a serious medical need, what treatment these conditions

28
No. C 11-6317 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

1

require, and how the treatment he received (or failed to receive) was constitutionally

2

inadequate.

3

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth

4

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

5

U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination

6

of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the

7

defendant’s response to that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)

8

(overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

9

Cir. 1997) (en banc)). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction

11

of pain.” Id. at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a

12

reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the

13

presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or

14

the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a

15

“serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059–60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d

16

1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

17

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

18

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

19

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 837 (1994) (equating standard with that of

20

criminal recklessness). The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the

21

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but “must also draw

22

the inference.” Id. Consequently, in order for deliberate indifference to be established, there

23

must exist both a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and harm

24

resulting therefrom. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. In order to prevail on a claim of

25

deliberate indifference to medical needs, a plaintiff must establish that the course of

26

treatment the doctors chose was “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that

27

they embarked on this course in “conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s

28
No. C 11-6317 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3

1

health.” See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058–60 (9th Cir. 2004). A claim of mere

2

negligence related to medical problems, or a difference of opinion between a prisoner patient

3

and a medical doctor, is not enough to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id.;

4

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet

5

these requirements.

6

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

7

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

8

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (11-6317 RS

9

(PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff shall

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

name as defendants all those specific persons who he thinks are responsible for the alleged

11

violations, rather than simply list the prison itself as a defendant. Because an amended

12

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

13

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

14

sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not

15

incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended

16

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

17

notice to plaintiff.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 7, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

No. C 11-6317 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

4