Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02033/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02033-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM HOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HIMMELVL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 16-02033 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at Martinez Detention Facility 

(“MDF”). On July 28, 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, for 

Plaintiff to attempt to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs. (Docket No. 6.) Plaintiff has filed a two page 

document which the Court construes as an amended complaint. (Docket No. 7.) 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

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

Case 5:16-cv-02033-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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 id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the 

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that this civil action is “due to the gross medical negligence of the 

treatment of [his] eye injury that was sustained while [his] stay of incarceration at the 

Contra Costa County Detention Facility [sic].” (Docket No. 7 at 1-2.) Plaintiff claims that 

the “facilities [sic] medical staff” are being negligent and not “adhering to the Title 15 

subsection 3350” of the California Code of Regulations. (Id.) 

As with the original complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants are being 

negligent are insufficient to state a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th 

Cir. 2002); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); see, e.g., McGuckin 

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

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a 

prisoner’s 8th Amendment rights); Anthony v. Dowdle, 853 F.2d 741, 743 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(no more than negligence stated where prison warden and work supervisor failed to 

provide prompt and sufficient medical care). Furthermore, the failure to adhere to state 

law, without more, does not state a cognizable federal claim under § 1983. Plaintiff has 

been afforded an opportunity to remedy deficiency of his original complaint and has failed 

to do so. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under the 

Case 5:16-cv-02033-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\02033Hood_dism 

11/1/2016

Case 5:16-cv-02033-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 3