Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03771/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03771-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

15-cv-3771 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

DELMOS WHITLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRY WEBS, CEO; et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-3771 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[Re: ECF No. 6]

Delmos Whitley, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil complaint alleging claims based on his medical

care while imprisoned. Specifically, he alleged that, during his recuperation from surgeries done in

2010 and 2011, he discovered “his inability to release semen,” also known as a “retro-grade

ejaculation.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and dismissed it with leave to amend, explaining that the complaint did not allege the violation of a

federal constitutional right or otherwise allege that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction

over the complaint. The court described the requirements for alleging a claim under the Eighth

Amendment. 

Mr. Whitley’s claim concerns his medical care, which suggests that the Eighth Amendment

might apply. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires

that prison officials take reasonable measures for prisoner health and safety. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). For an Eighth Amendment claim based on the response

to a prisoner's medical needs, the prisoner must plead and prove: (1) that he had a serious

medical need, and (2) deliberate indifference to that need by the defendant, i.e., the prison

official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to prisoner health and safety. See Colwell

v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014). A serious medical need may exist if the

Case 3:15-cv-03771-LB Document 8 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
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

15-cv-3771 LB

ORDER 2

"failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th

Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Mere negligence does not violate

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

his amended complaint, Mr. Whitley must link each proposed defendant to his claim by

explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights. See

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). If he wishes to pursue an Eighth

Amendment claim, he should allege that his complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to

show that the court has federal question jurisdiction.

(ECF No. 4 at 3.)

Mr. Whitley filed an amended complaint, providing almost no details beyond those alleged in his

original complaint. Mr. Whitley alleges that he had a colon resection surgery to remove a cancerous

tumor in October 2010, and had another surgery on February 24, 2011 to repair an incisional hernia,

which was partially successful. During Mr. Whitley’s recuperation from the surgeries, he

discovered “his inability to release semen,” which he states is referred to as a “retro-grade

ejaculation.” (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Mr. Whitley allegedly was informed of a 4- to 5-year period to

“self-correct” from the problem, but the self-correction did not occur. (Id.) The amended complaint

alleges that Mr. Whitley researched and “discovered that there is no existing cure” for the retrograde ejaculation. (Id.) The only new information in the amended complaint is the allegation that

the surgeries were performed by Dr. Barron Mark Palmer at Natividad Medical Center. 

The amended complaint fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against any defendant. 

Assuming arguendo that Mr. Whitley’s condition amounts to a serious medical need, there is no

allegation that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference, i.e., that any defendant knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk to his health. Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066. Mr. Whitley identifies Dr.

Palmer as the surgeon for both surgeries, but alleges no facts suggestive of deliberate indifference by

Dr. Palmer. 

An unsigned “affidavit of specific negative averment” attached to the amended complaint states

that “[t]here is no proof that the internal injuries/damages received by the Third Party Affiant

Delmos Whitley could not/should not have been known or expected to be a possible post condition

or procedure after effect, that should have been disclosed to the Third Party Affiant Delmos

Whitley.” (ECF No. 6 at 13.) Mr. Whitley wrote in an inmate appeal filed in April 2011 that no one

told him that retrograde ejaculation was a possibility or a risk of the surgeries he underwent. (ECF

Case 3:15-cv-03771-LB Document 8 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
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

15-cv-3771 LB

ORDER 3

No. 6-8 at 5.) These documents suggest, at most, negligence in failing to disclose to him that his

cancer and hernia surgeries carried the risk of a retro-grade ejaculation problem as a side effect of

the surgeries. Negligence does not violate the Eighth Amendment, however. See Toguchi, 391

F.3d at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or

negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”) 

As explained in the order of dismissal with leave to amend, federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction and, as relevant here, the court only has jurisdiction to entertain this action if it raises a

federal question, such as a civil rights claim asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 4 at 3.) Mr.

Whitley has failed to fail to state a § 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted. Since he has not

pled a claim that would give this court jurisdiction over this action and permit the exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim, he must pursue any negligence claim in state court.

The amended complaint fails to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation or for a

violation of any other right under the constitution or laws of the United States. Further leave to

amend will not be granted because it would be futile. The order of dismissal with leave to amend

identified the deficiencies in the original complaint and Mr. Whitley was unable to cure those

deficiencies in his amended complaint. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. This dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Whitley filing an action in

state court if he wishes to pursue a claim for negligence. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03771-LB Document 8 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3