Major v. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 8/15/2016. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/13/16. (Certificate of Service Attached) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW BENJAMIN MAJOR,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02824-PJH
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant.

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION

15
16

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

21

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

22

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

23

Pacifica Police 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

25

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

26

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

27

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)

28

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed

1

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

2

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

3

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

4

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

5

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state

6

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme

7

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal

8

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

9

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

12
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

LEGAL CLAIMS

17

Plaintiff states that he is receiving inadequate medical care at Santa Clara County

18

Jail.

19

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

20

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.1 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
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. Even though pretrial detainees’ claims
arise under the Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for
evaluating those claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th
Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). The
Ninth Circuit has determined that the appropriate standard for evaluating constitutional
claims brought by pretrial detainees is the same one used to evaluate convicted
prisoners’ claims under the Eighth Amendment. “The requirement of conduct that
amounts to ‘deliberate indifference’ provides an appropriate balance of the pretrial
detainees’ right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to manage
the prisons.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en
banc) (citation omitted).
2

1

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

2

banc). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two

3

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

4

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.
A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could

6

result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious”need for medical treatment. Id. at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

1059-60.

12

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

13

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

14

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must

15

not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial

16

risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official

17

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the

18

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290

19

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

20

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

21

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

22

Plaintiff states that doctors prescribed psychotropic medication for his mental

23

health needs but the medication resulted in plaintiff, who is male, growing breasts which

24

caused his nipples to hurt. Plaintiff contends he is disfigured and in psychological

25

distress. He seeks only money damages. However, plaintiff has not identified any

26

specific individual and has failed to describe how any defendant specifically violated his

27

constitutional rights. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to

28

identify the specific actions of each defendant and explain how the side effects of his
3

1

me
edication de
emonstrated deliberate indifferen to his serious medical needs.
e
nt

2

CONCLU
USION

3

1. The complaint is DISMISS
e
SED with le
eave to amend in acco
ordance wit the
th

4

sta
andards set forth abov The am
t
ve.
mended com
mplaint mus be filed no later than August
st
o
n

5

15, 2016, and must inclu the cap
d
ude
ption and civ case num
vil
mber used in this orde and the
er

6

wo
ords AMENDED COMP
PLAINT on the first pa
age. Becau an ame
use
ended comp
plaint

7

completely replaces the original com
mplaint, pla
aintiff must include in it all the cla
aims he

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

wis
shes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 96 F.2d 125 1262 (9t Cir. 1992 He may
63
58,
th
2).
y
not incorporat material from the or
te
riginal comp
plaint by re
eference.
2. It is the plaintif respons
s
ff's
sibility to pro
osecute this case. Pla
aintiff must keep the
cou informed of any change of address by filing a separ
urt
d
rate paper w the cle headed
with
erk
“No
otice of Cha
ange of Address,” and must com
d
mply with the court's ord
e
ders in a tim
mely
fas
shion. Failu to do so may resul in the dism
ure
o
lt
missal of th action fo failure to prosecute
his
or
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr
e
rocedure 41
1(b).
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: July 13 2016
3,

17
18

PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

19
20

\\can
ndoak.cand.circ9
9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2
2016\2016_02824
4_Major_v_Sant
ta_Clara_Valley_
_Medical_Center
r_(PSP)\16-cv02824-PJH-dwlta.do
ocx

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

DISTRICT C
COURT
UNITED STATES D

2

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CAL
N
RN
CT
LIFORNIA

3
4

MATTHEW BENJAMIN MAJOR,
M
B
N

Case No. 16-cv-028
824-PJH

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

SA
ANTA CLA
ARA VALLE MEDICA
EY
AL
CENTER,
C
Defendant.
I, the undersigned hereby ce
u
d,
ertify that I am an emp
ployee in th Office of the Clerk,
he
f
U.S District Court, North
S.
C
hern Distric of Californ
ct
nia.
That on July 13, 2016, I SER
2
RVED a true and corre copy(ies of the att
e
ect
s)
tached, by
pla
acing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addres
c
ope
ssed to the person(s) h
hereinafter
list
ted, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing sa copy(ies into an
d
y
aid
s)
inte
er-office de
elivery receptacle locat in the C
ted
Clerk's office.

15
16
17

Ma
atthew Benj
jamin Major ID: 15031927
Sa
anta Clara County Jail - North
C
885 North San Pedro Sr
reet
Sa Jose, CA 95110
an
A

18
19
20

Da
ated: July 13 2016
3,

21
22

oong
Susan Y. So
Clerk, United States Dis
d
strict Court
C

23
24
25
26

y:________
By
_________
_________
Nichole Peric Deputy C
c,
Clerk to the
e
Honorable P
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
N

27
28
5