Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06705/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06705-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRKTON MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.W. MOOR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F - 03-6705 OWW DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff filed the original complaint on November 26, 2003. On May 10, 2006, the

Court screened the complaint. The Court found the original complaint failed to state a claim for

relief. Plaintiff’s claim did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment because a claim for inadequate medical treatment does not rise to the level of

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

Thus, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend for failing to state a

claim for relief under section 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint

filed on May 24, 2006. 

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-06705-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

SCREENING STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners when they are seeking

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

1915(A). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims

that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(A)(b)(1). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or

appeal ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 79 (1984), citing, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. 1981). Reviewing under this th

standard, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint are true. Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The Court must also construe the

complaint in light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor.

Jankins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Finally, the Court will find and recommend

dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, with prejudice, if the complaint fails to cure

deficiencies.

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges on June 23, 1993 he went to see

Dr. J.W. Moor because he was having problems with bleeding and swelling in his rectum. 

Dr. J.W. Moor did not do an examination of his rectum and prescribed suppositories to Plaintiff

for hemorrhoids. The doctor did not suggest surgery. On July 18, 1996, Plaintiff contends he

saw Dr. G.H. Embree for more effective treatment because the suppository treatment was

insufficient. Plaintiff alleges Dr. G.H. Embree told him there were no other adequate

medications and to continue taking the suppositories. He also did not suggest surgery. Plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-06705-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

contends, on October 2, 2000 he went to see Dr. Baughman and requested hemorrhoid surgery. 

Dr. Baughman denied Plaintiff’s surgery request without giving him a rectum examination. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ conduct in not recommending surgery caused him pain between

1993-2003. 

Finally, Plaintiff contends Dr. Weiner examined him on March 12, 2003 and determined

he did not have a hemorrhoid, but had an anal fissure. Plaintiff alleged Dr. Weiner recommended

for him to have the fissure surgically removed. Plaintiff had surgery on July 12, 2003.

D. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff was advised in the previous order, a prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care

does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. The “deliberate

indifference” standard involves both a subjective and objective element. First, the objective

prong requires the alleged deprivation to be “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994), citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Second, the subjective prong

requires that the prison official acts with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 837. This state of mind is more than mere negligence, but less than intentional conduct

undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Id. The prison official must know of and

disregard an excessive risk to an inmates health or safety. Id. 

Additionally, as mentioned in the previous order, mere ‘indifference,’ negligence,’ or

‘medical malpractice’ will not support a cause of action for an Eighth Amendment constitutional

violation. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9 Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, th

429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating

a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth

Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the

victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d

1310, 1316 (9 Cir. 1995). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate th

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9 Cira. th

1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnoses or treatment does not support a claim of

Case 1:03-cv-06705-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9 Cir. 1989). th

Plaintiff’s allegations, once again, fail to state a cognizable claim under the Eighth

Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that each defendant performed inadequate medical treatment

because they recommended suppositories rather than surgery. Such allegations of negligence and

medical malpractice against a prison official do not amount to a constitutional violation under the

Eighth Amendment. Broughton, 622 F.2d at 460, citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Thus,

Plaintiff has failed stated a claim for relief under section 1983. 

E. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The deficiencies in the complaint are not capable of being cured by amendment, and

thus, leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 7, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06705-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 4 of 4