Cox v. Dental and Medical Department of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 33

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/22/18. (Certificate of Service Attached). (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BOBBY JOE COX,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-04036-PJH
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
T. SPENCER,
Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

14

U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff

15

has filed an amended complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

19

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

21

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

22

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

23

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

24

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

26

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

27

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

28

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

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

LEGAL CLAIMS

18

Plaintiff states that he received inadequate dental care.

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

23

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

24

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

25

defendant's response to 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.

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

1059-60.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official
should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Plaintiff states that while incarcerated at California Institute for Men in Chino, CA

16

he was diagnosed with throat cancer. In April 2015 he underwent a right-side radical

17

tonsillectomy and biopsy. While waiting for the final pathology report, dentists at a prison

18

pulled out his teeth in preparation for radiation treatment. Plaintiff contends that the

19

surgery to remove the cancer was successful and the teeth were removed for no reason

20

because he did not need radiation treatment. He also argues that he was not provided a

21

proper diet after the teeth were pulled and he lost too much weight as a result.

22

In the amended complaint plaintiff has failed to identify the actions of any specific

23

defendant. The amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must

24

describe the actions of the individual defendants and how they violated his constitutional

25

rights. It also appears that the events in this action occurred at California Institute for

26

Men which is location in the Central District of California. In an amended complaint

27

plaintiff must specify where the incident occurred.

28
3

USION
CONCLU

1
2

1. The amended complaint is DISMISS
e
SED with le
eave to ame in acco
end
ordance

3

wit the stand
th
dards set fo above. The secon amended complain must be f
orth
nd
nt
filed no

4

late than Sep
er
ptember 22 2018, and must include the caption and c case nu
2,
civil
umber used
d

5

in this order and the wor SECON AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first pag
t
a
rds
ND
ge.

6

Be
ecause an amended co
a
omplaint co
ompletely re
eplaces the original co
e
omplaint, plaintiff must
t

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

inc
clude in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Fer
s
s
rdik v. Bonz
zelet, 963 F
F.2d 1258,
1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not in
.
e
ncorporate material fro the orig
om
ginal compla by
aint
ref
ference.
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: Augus 22, 2018
st

17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

2

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

3
4

BOBBY JOE COX,

Case No. 1
16-cv-04036
6-PJH

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

6
7

T. SPENCER
R,
.
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
Dis

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on August 22, 2018, I SER
n
RVED a true and correct copy(ies) o the attache by
e
t
of
ed,
pla
acing said co
opy(ies) in a postage paid envelope a
d
addressed to the person(s hereinafte listed, by
s)
er
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

16
17
18

Bobby Joe Cox ID: BC436
x
69
Fol
lsom State Prison Housing: B1-D2-3
P
31
P.O Box 950
O.
Fol
lsom, CA 95
5763

19
20
21

Da
ated: August 22, 2018

22
23

usan Y. Soon
ng
Su
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26

By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N

27
28
5