Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00074/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00074-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEMAL DAVID LEWIS, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

DR. BABIENCO,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0074 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,

California, has filed a pro se complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming that prison dentist Dr. Babienco was deliberately indifferent to his

dental needs. Plaintiff specifically alleges that he saw Dr. Babienco on May 16,

2005 due to pain and slight swelling of his gumline. Babienco took x-rays and

determined that plaintiff’s gumline had become infected by two decaying teeth

that had to be removed. Plaintiff was scheduled for oral surgery on May 18,

2005. But because plaintiff was not allowed to leave his housing unit until

custody count was completed at 12:50 p.m., plaintiff arrived at his scheduled

12:30 p.m. appointment 45 minutes late and was told that surgery could not be

performed that day. 

Plaintiff returned to the dental clinic on May 20 and was seen by Dr.

Repasky. Repasky prescribed ibuprofen and issued plaintiff a pass to return to

the dental clinic on May 23, 2005 to have the decayed teeth removed.

Case 3:06-cv-00074-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 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

Plaintiff returned to the dental clinic on the morning of May 23, but was

informed that Babienco would not perform the surgery that day. Plaintiff was

advised that because he had missed his first scheduled surgery appointment he

was required to initiate the inmate health care request procedure for a new dental

surgery appointment. 

 Plaintiff submitted a health care request for a new dental surgery

appointment on the morning of May 24 and oral surgery was scheduled for, and

performed on, the next day. 

Plaintiff claims that Babienco unnecessarily delayed his oral surgery

“based upon the conflicting policies of custody staff and medical staff.” 

Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). 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 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

/

Case 3:06-cv-00074-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 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

B. Legal Claims

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's 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 by WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 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). Neither negligence nor gross

negligence is actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. See id. at 835-36 &

n.4; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

Although regrettable, plaintiff's allegations must be dismissed because

they do not amount to more than a claim for negligence or gross negligence not

cognizable under § 1983. See, e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th

Cir. 1998) (finding no merit in claims stemming from alleged delays in

administering pain medication, treating broken nose and providing replacement

crutch, because claims did not amount to more than negligence); O'Loughlin v.

Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that isolated occurrences of

neglect may constitute grounds for medical malpractice but do not rise to level of

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain). Babienco’s adherence to policy

cannot be said to have amounted to deliberate indifference because the medical

records made clear that plaintiff had been prescribed pain medication and

therefore could reasonably wait a few more days to have his decayed teeth

removed. Not surprisingly, plaintiff had oral surgery two days thereafter. 

Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim may be cognizable in state court, but not

here. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004)

Case 3:06-cv-00074-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED under the authority of 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 01/17/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00074-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 4