Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01458/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01458-1/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

MARK LAVON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. A. MAJOR,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-1458 EDL (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed an amended pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the amended

complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

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).

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

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

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

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

Case 3:15-cv-01458-JST Document 9 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

B. Legal Claims 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Dr. A. Major, DDS,

examined Plaintiff in October 2014. Plaintiff told Dr. Major that he was experiencing a

moderate amount of pain in his teeth when eating and drinking. Dr. Major visually

examined Plaintiff’s mouth and diagnosed that Plaintiff had a small cavity that needed a

simple, routine filling. Dr. Major ordered follow-up care to occur approximately one month

later. Prior to the follow-up appointment, Plaintiff received notification that his appointment

had been cancelled and would be rescheduled. More than 90 days had passed, and

Plaintiff still had not received notification of a follow-up appointment. Plaintiff’s tooth began

deteriorating and then broke in half. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal complaining

about inadequate dental care. Dr. Major responded that the scheduler had been fired for

not doing her job and that was the reason that Plaintiff had not yet been seen for his followup appointment. Dr. Major informed Plaintiff that the only option left to treat the tooth was

to extract it.

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); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

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

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, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

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

Case 3:15-cv-01458-JST Document 9 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. 

See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060

Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Major, liberally construed, at most leads to an inference

that Dr. Major was negligent in his diagnosis or negligent in failing to ensure that Plaintiff’s

follow-up appointment was rescheduled. However, 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). The facts alleged provide a reasonable

inference that Dr. Major’s rescheduler was fired for failing to perform her job, which led to

Plaintiff’s follow-up appointment being delayed. There is no allegation from which it can be

inferred that Dr. Major was responsible for any delay in Plaintiff’s follow-up appointment, or

knew of any delay prior to Plaintiff’s informing him via the administrative appeal. Even at

the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Further, there are no facts from which it

can be inferred that Dr. Major was aware that a substantial risk of serious harm existed,

and from that, failed to act.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

A district court should deny leave to amend on futility grounds if “it appears beyond doubt

that the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint would not remedy the deficiencies in the

previous complaint.” Adam v. Hawaii, 235 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001). Put differently,

futility of amendment frequently means that it is not factually possible for plaintiff to amend

the complaint so as to cure the deficiencies. Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals,

279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). The court concludes that it is possible for Plaintiff to

cure his deficiencies and allege facts in support of a cognizable claim. For the above

reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff believes in

Case 3:15-cv-01458-JST Document 9 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

good faith that he can state a cognizable federal constitutional claim against Dr. Major, he

may file a second amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with

the standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight

(28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number

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

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original and supplemental

complaints, 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 file a second amended complaint in compliance

with this order will result in the dismissal of this action and a finding that further leave to

amend will be futil.

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

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

of 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 prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October , 2015. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.15\Williams458dwla2.wpd

9

Case 3:15-cv-01458-JST Document 9 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 4