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
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?