Bullock v. State of California

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 6/25/2014. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/21/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

STACEY DWAYNE BULLOCK,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-2159 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se
13
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in
14
forma pauperis.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

2

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

4

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

679 (2009).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

B.

17
18

Legal Claims
Plaintiff states that he received inadequate medical care at San Quentin State

Prison.

19

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

20

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

21

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

22

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

23

A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

24

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to

25

that need. Id. at 1059.

26

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

27

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The

28

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of
2

1

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

2

individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of

3

indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have

9

been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth
Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

12

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

13

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

14

Plaintiff states that he injured his hamstring while running and a nurse diagnosed a

15

pulled muscle and he was given ice. Plaintiff returned to the medical center a week later as

16

he was still experiencing pain in his hamstring and the nurse found ecchymosis and

17

swelling in the hamstring area. The next month plaintiff was seen by a doctor who stated

18

that plaintiff “did not show signs nor symptoms associated with a high grade torn hamstring.

19

However, partial torn is theoretically possible.” Complaint at 3. Plaintiff provides no other

20

information and as relief seeks adequate medical care and compensation.

21

While plaintiff has provides many exhibits, the exact nature of his claim is not clear,

22

except that there was a delay in being seen by a doctor. He has not described how this

23

delay demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and regardless,

24

mere delay without more fails to state a claim. Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

25

Com'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). The complaint will be dismissed with leave to

26

amend for plaintiff to provide additional information and describe the specific actions of

27

each defendant and how they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

28

Simply attaching exhibits is insufficient.
3

1
2

CONCLUSION
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

3

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than June 25,

4

2014, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

5

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

6

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

7

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

8

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.

9

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

12

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Bullock2159.dwlta.wpd

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4