Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04361/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04361-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL COLLINS, 3rd,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-4361 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

This is a case filed by a patient at Napa State Hospital in Napa, California. Plaintiff has

paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

It is unclear whether plaintiff is a prisoner or not. “Prisoner” is defined in Section

1915A as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of,

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 2 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violation of criminal law or the terms and

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(c). Plaintiff says that his paranoid schizophrenia developed from a vicious attack on

him in “my cell” in 1974. Thus is appears he was a prisoner at that time, but whether he is one

now – that is, whether he is still serving his sentence – is unexplained. The Court will assume

that he is a prisoner, but if that is incorrect, he should explain in the amendment which is

permitted in the discussion below. 

A. Legal claims

Plaintiff alleges that he was given an accidental overdose of a medication. A week after

the overdose he was called to the office of the Unit Supervisor, who told him about the

overdose and that the would have to be monitored for safety reasons. Plaintiff alleges that

because of his illness this caused him to believe that the “whole hospital” was plotting to kill

him. He asserts that giving the overdose and being informed of it by someone who was not a

doctor was malpractice and violated his Eighth Amendment rights. 

The only defendant named is “Napa State Hospital.” The hospital, being a state agency,

cannot be sued in federal court. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364(9th Cir. 2004)

(Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against state agencies). The complaint

will be dismissed with leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to amend, he should bear in mind that [w]hile a complaint ... does

not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

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

right to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

1955, 1964-65 (2007). Plaintiff must "proffer enough facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

Only deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth

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

U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 2 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004). To state a constitutional claim arising from the medical care

given him, therefore, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to make it “plausible” that

defendants – whoever he might name – were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical

need, rather than just having made a mistake. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty

days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

(9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims. If

plaintiff contends he is not a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he should

explain why he thinks that.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also 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 prosecute

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\COLLINS.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 2 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 3