Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01413/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL D. CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. JONES; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1413 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE 

INTRODUCTION

Terrell Curry, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In this action, Terrell Curry complains about the allegedly inadequate dental care he

received in prison for a broken tooth that caused him pain from about March 29, 2006 until it

was extracted on May 16, 2006. Curry attached to his complaint his own declaration, which

is incorporated by reference as a part of the complaint. The complaint alleges the following: 

Curry saw dentist Dr. Jones and registered dental assistant Quigley on or about

August 9, 2005 for a dental issue unrelated to the current dispute. He told them that he had a

problem with another tooth (i.e., tooth # 9) that was cracked at the mid-root area and was

loose. Dr. Jones told Curry that he should have tooth # 9 extracted soon. Curry declined to

have it pulled that day because it did not then cause any pain and he felt ill with flu-like

symptoms. He told them that he was not refusing forever to have tooth # 9 pulled but simply

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

refusing to have it pulled that day. Dr. Jones and Quigley told him to fill out a dental sick

call slip when he was ready to have it extracted.

By about March 29, 2006, tooth # 9 had "begun to bother [Curry] a little," and he first

started to complaint about the pain. Curry Decl., ¶ 3. He submitted a dental sick call slip,

asking that the tooth be extracted as soon as possible.

 Nothing happened for a month, so Curry submitted another dental sick call slip on

April 26, 2006, labeling it an emergency. He was not seen or evaluated. He also submitted

another dental sick call slip on April 27, 2006, describing his pain and requesting to see the

dentist. On May 2, 2006, he wrote an emergency letter to defendants Jones and Quigley

informing him of his serious pain and swelling. He received no response. On May 8, 2006,

Curry submitted another emergency dental sick call slip to Jones and Quigley. He received

no response.

On May 7, 2006, he tried to file an emergency grievance about the disregard of his

health care service requests. Defendants Medina and Variz, the prison appeals coordinators,

purposely chose not to process his inmate grievance as an emergency. The grievance was

apparently processed as a regular inmate grievance, and the response thereto was that he

would receive dental care within thirty days of the May 31 response. See Exh. F. The

response was signed by Yolanda Bolton, who was responsible for scheduling inmates to see

the dentist. Curry also states that Bolton, as well as Jones and Quigley had "disregarded all

Health Care Service Request forms [he] submitted." Curry Decl., ¶ 13. 

On May 16, 2006, Curry told a guard in the library that his face was swollen and he

was in a lot of pain from tooth # 9. The library guard contacted a "medical guard" who

contacted defendant Quigley and a dentist, Dr. Major. Curry's tooth was extracted that day. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standards For Review Of Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

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

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

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). A claim that is incomprehensible may be dismissed as frivolous

as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir.

1989).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. The Claims

1. Inmate Grievance Not Processed As An Emergency Grievance

Curry alleges that defendants Variz and Medina violated his First Amendment rights

by failing and refusing to process his grievance as an emergency grievance. Their action

apparently caused it to be processed as a regular grievance. 

There is no federal constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance

system for California inmates. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988);

Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). The denial of an inmate appeal is

not so severe a change in condition as to implicate the Due Process Clause itself and the State

of California has not created a protected interest in an administrative appeal system in its

prisons. California Code of Regulations, title 15 sections 1073 and 3084.1 grant prisoners in

the county jails and state prisons a purely procedural right: the right to have a prison appeal. 

The regulations simply require the establishment of a procedural structure for reviewing

prisoner complaints and set forth no substantive standards; instead, they provide for flexible

appeal time limits, see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6, and, at most, that "[n]o reprisal shall

be taken against an inmate or parolee for filing an appeal," id. § 3084.1(d). A provision that

merely provides procedural requirements, even if mandatory, cannot form the basis of a

constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. See Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th

Cir. 1993); see also Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1430 (prison grievance procedure is procedural

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections of

Due Process Clause). 

Curry had no federal constitutional right to a properly functioning appeal system. An

incorrect decision on an administrative appeal, failure to process the appeal in a particular

way, or failure to follow up on it therefore did not amount to a violation of his right to due

process. The claim is dismissed without leave to amend.

2. Deliberate Indifference Claim

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 102-04 (1976). Serious medical needs may include dental care needs. See Hunt v.

Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (dental care important medical need of

inmates). To prove that the response of prison officials to a prisoner's medical needs was

constitutionally deficient, the prisoner must establish (1) a serious medical need and (2)

deliberate indifference to that need by prison officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official is deliberately

indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards

that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837, 844 (1994). 

Liberally construed, the complaint states a claim for relief for deliberate indifference

to Curry's serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. 

Curry has stated a claim against defendants Jones, Quigley and Bolton, who allegedly failed

and refused to respond to Curry's many grievances requesting immediate dental care for his

painful and broken tooth.

The complaint does not state a claim for relief against defendants Variz and Medina,

whose alleged misdeed was to cause his inmate appeal to be processed as a regular inmate

appeal rather than an emergency inmate appeal. When the inmate appeal was ultimately

decided, the response from defendant Bolton, who scheduled dental appointments. Bolton's

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

May 31, 2006 response was that the grievance was partially granted and that Curry would be

seen within thirty days of the response. Even if Variz and Medina had treated the inmate

grievance as an emergency, they had no power to give him dental treatment; rather, they only 

could have caused his grievance to be considered more quickly. But the person who

ultimately did answer the grievance and would schedule the dental appointments apparently

didn't see Curry's description of his painful and abscessed tooth as presenting such an

emergency as to require an immediate appointment and said it would occur within thirty

days. Also, Curry's tooth actually was extracted within nine days of his submission of the

grievance that he complains was not handled properly. Defendants Medina and Variz are not

liable on an Eighth Amendment theory for their decision to that Curry's grievance should not

be processed as an emergency. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state a cognizable § 1983

claim for an Eighth Amendment violation against defendants Quigley, Jones, and Bolton. 

The complaint does not state a claim against defendant Medina and Variz; they are dismissed

from this action.

2. The clerk shall issue summonses and the United States Marshal shall serve,

without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and this Order of Service upon the

following defendants: (1) dentist Dr. R. Jones, (2) registered dental assistant Quenn Quigley,

and (3) Yolanda Bolton. All three defendants apparently work in the dental office at Salinas

Valley State Prison. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule

for dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than October 5, 2007, defendants must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the

date the motion is due.

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive

motion must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than November 2,

2007. Plaintiff must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary

judgment as he prepares his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they seek

to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for

summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when

there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute

about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end

your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment

that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you

cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and show that there is a

genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence

in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial. (See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they must file and serve the reply

brief no later than October 19, 2007.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may

disregard any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until

a defendant's counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document

directly to defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be

mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for

this case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case. 

8. Plaintiff sent the court asking for a copy of something called "judicial facts and

figures" from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He should send requests for such

publications directly to the Administrative Office in Washington D.C.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2007 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01413-MHP Document 7 Filed 08/07/07 Page 7 of 7