Stutson v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 USC SECTION 1915 AND VACATING SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on July 23, 2013. (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/23/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TANYA R. STUTSON,

Case No. 13-cv-00537-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915 WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff asserts claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

14

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, wardens and doctors who

15

allegedly failed to diagnose her with Lupus even though blood tests performed on several

16

occasions when she was incarcerated in federal correctional institutions revealed low red and

17

white blood cell counts and low platelets. Having previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to

18

Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the Court now considers whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be

19

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis

20

complaint that is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494,

21

495 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

23

complaint fails to state a claim and therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a pleading must contain a “short and

25

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The complaint must

26

give the defendant “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell

27

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To meet this requirement, the complaint

28

must be supported by factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “While

1

legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint,” neither legal conclusions nor

2

conclusory statements are themselves sufficient, and such statements are not entitled to a

3

presumption of truth. Id. at 679.

4

“To state a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must allege that persons acting under color of federal

5

law violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996). To

6

the extent Plaintiff is attempting to state a Bivens claim based on an alleged violation of the Eighth

7

Amendment, the applicable standard is one of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.

8

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334

9

(9th Cir. 1990) (gross negligence insufficient to state claim for denial of medical needs to
prisoner). To state a Bivens claim based on alleged deliberate indifference as to the provision of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

medical care, a plaintiff must allege both that the deprivation of medical care in question was

12

objectively serious, and that the defendant official acted with a subjectively culpable state of mind.

13

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in

14

diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment

15

under the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

16

Plaintiff has alleged that a number of doctors at federal correctional facilities who

17

conducted blood tests failed to diagnose her with Lupus, alleging that they “knew or should have

18

known that their concealment/fraud did deny early diagnosis.” However, she has not alleged any

19

facts that would support an inference that the failure to diagnose amounted to anything more than

20

negligence. In particular, notwithstanding the blood test results, Plaintiff has not alleged facts

21

showing a subjectively culpable state of mind, that is, that any of the defendants knew of and

22

disregarded a substantial risk of harm when they failed to diagnose her with Lupus.

23

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. An amended

24

complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The Case Management

25

Conference set for September 20, 2013 is vacated. A new case management conference will be set

26
27
28
2

1
2
3

if Plaintiff is able to state a viable claim in her amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2013

4
5
6

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3