Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03068/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03068-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1 at 4.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LURENZO LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. G. KALISHER, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3068 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Lurenzo Lee Williams, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is dismissed with

leave to amend. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks 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. 

Case 5:15-cv-03068-NC Document 5 Filed 10/26/15 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

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim 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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

II. Legal Claim

Plaintiff alleges that he arrived at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) on May 28,

2014. He was seen by Defendant Dr. G. Kalisher because he was having pain in his lower

back, had muscle spasms in his calf area, his hip, and in both feet. Plaintiff told Dr. Kalisher

that he had been taking morphine for the pain and needed her to prescribe more. Dr. Kalisher

ordered x-rays, and Plaintiff had his x-rays taken on July 8, 2014, and then had lab work

done on July 16, 2014. On September 30, 2014, Dr. Kalisher informed Plaintiff that the test

results showed that Plaintiff had arthritis, however the arthritis was not serious enough to

prescribe any narcotic medication. Instead of prescribing morphine, Dr. Kalisher offered

Case 5:15-cv-03068-NC Document 5 Filed 10/26/15 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

3

Plaintiff non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as an alternative, but Plaintiff refused them. 

Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, complaining that he wanted his morphine prescription

to be renewed because of his serious pain. The appeal was denied by Dr. Kalisher. Plaintiff

appealed the decision to the second level of review and the Director’s level of review, which

were denied by Defendants Dr. Bright and Deputy Director Lewis, respectively.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should have renewed his prescription

for morphine because he had been given morphine previously, and Defendants should have

ordered an MRI and further testing to better diagnose Plaintiff’s claims of pain. 

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). To

state an Eighth Amendment violation, two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged

is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately

indifferent to inmate health or safety. Id. at 834. Neither negligence nor gross negligence

will constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at 835-36 & n.4. A prison official cannot be

held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of

confinement unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the official knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps

to abate it. See id. at 837. The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

inference. See id. 

Here, even liberally construed, Plaintiff has not stated a claim that Defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. From the allegations, no reasonable

inference can be made that Defendants were criminally reckless, or that they knew that

without prescribing Plaintiff morphine, they would be subjecting Plaintiff to an excessive

risk to his health. Defendants told Plaintiff that his condition, according to medical tests, did

not warrant narcotic medication at that time. Plaintiff refused alternative medication, and

insisted on morphine for his pain medication. However, “[a] difference of opinion between a

Case 5:15-cv-03068-NC Document 5 Filed 10/26/15 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

4

prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a §

1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Similarly, a

showing of nothing more than a difference of medical opinion as to the need to pursue one

course of treatment over another is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate

indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir. 2004).

As the complaint currently reads, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against

Defendants. However, if Plaintiff believes that he can cure the deficiencies addressed above,

he may amend his complaint to do so.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff believes he can

cure the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, he must file an amended complaint

within twenty-eight days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 15-3068 NC (PR)) and the

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file an amended complaint

within twenty-eight days and in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal

of this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form

along with his copy of this order. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

3. 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).

Case 5:15-cv-03068-NC Document 5 Filed 10/26/15 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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03068-NC Document 5 Filed 10/26/15 Page 5 of 5