Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02107/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02107-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02107 Lopez02107_dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M.D. LOUIS M. MESSINA, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-02107 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility

(“CMF”), filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he

was provided with constitutionally inadequate medical treatment. Because plaintiff

failed to set forth sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim against the named

defendants, this Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on January 11, 2005. On February 7,

2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which is now before the Court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

///

Case 5:04-cv-02107-JW Document 14 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02107 Lopez02107_dismissal.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

1. Standard of Review

Section 1915A requires a federal court to engage in a preliminary

screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

officer, or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Federal

courts must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the

court, at any time, determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting

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

2. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that after the completion and rehabilitation of a

surgical procedure that was performed by defendant Dr. Louis M. Messina, the chief

of the division of vascular surgery at the University of California, San Francisco

(“UCSF”), there has been no significant improvement of his overall state of health. 

(Am. Compl. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Joseph Bick, the referring physician at

CMF, and Dr. Ray Andreasen, the Chief Medical Officer at CMF, failed to arrange

follow-up procedures with Dr. Messina as he requested. Plaintiff alleges that Dr.

Andreason instead referred the matter to plaintiff’s primary physician. Based on

these allegations, plaintiff claims that all the defendants are liable for medical

Case 5:04-cv-02107-JW Document 14 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02107 Lopez02107_dismissal.wpd 3

malpractice, negligence, deliberate indifference, and intentional state law tort

violation. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference”

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical

need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition

could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a

reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

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

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

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

Id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir.

1990)).

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

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

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

substantial 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 Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v.

County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, therefore, there must be a purposeful act or failure to

Case 5:04-cv-02107-JW Document 14 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02107 Lopez02107_dismissal.wpd 4

act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at

1060; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.

1985). 

Plaintiff’s claims of medical malpractice and negligence are DISMISSED for

it is well established that a claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient

to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s fourth claim of intentional state law tort

violation is DISMISSED because a claim based solely on state tort law is not

cognizable under § 1983. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Servs. Dep’t,

489 U.S. 189, 201-03 (1989). 

Plaintiff’s third claim of deliberate indifference is without merit. Plaintiff

admits that he received complete surgical procedures and rehabilitation, and

thereafter he continued to see other doctors on several occasions at CMF, (Am.

Compl. 6). His medical needs after the surgery have neither gone untreated or been

ignored. Even though he claims that the treatment he received from these other

doctors fell below the normal standards of care, these alleged deficiencies amount to

nothing more than claims of negligence which are not sufficient to make out a

violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060-61. In regards

to his unanswered requests to see Dr. Messina, there is no constitutional right to

receive treatment from a specific doctor, especially where other competent doctors

are available to provide treatment. The Court is particularly unpersuaded here where

plaintiff is alleging medical malpractice and negligence against the same doctor

from whom he seeks follow-up treatment. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2).

///

Case 5:04-cv-02107-JW Document 14 Filed 07/09/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02107 Lopez02107_dismissal.wpd 5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

DATED: July 9, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-02107-JW Document 14 Filed 07/09/07 Page 5 of 5