Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06115/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06115-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED PARKER,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6115 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at The

California State Prison at at Corcoran. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Warden at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and Dr. Bussel, a staff psychiatrist.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this action is that Dr. Bussel discontinued a medication that he

had earlier prescribed for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Bussel discontinued the medication,

without warning, and that he suffers as a result. Plaintiff has difficulty reading and writing, and

“suffers mentally and physically.”

In an earlier order dismissing the original complaint, the court noted the following. Under

the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide medical care to those who

Case 1:04-cv-06115-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 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

2

are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9

th Cir. 2000). “In order to violate

the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there must be a

‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether medical

care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must examine

whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must determine

whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132.

The court advised Plaintiff that he had not alleged facts that indicate Dr. Bussel was

aware of, and disregarded, a serious risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety, resulting in injury to

Plaintiff. That Dr. Bussel discontinued Plaintiff’s medication does not, of itself, subject him to

liability for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff’s allegations, at most, state a disagreement with Dr.

Bussel’s course of treatment. A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does

not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.

1989). 

In response to that order, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. In the first amended

complaint, Plaintiff essentially restates the allegations of the original complaint. Plaintiff does

provide more factual specificity - he indicates that the medication at issue was addictive and that

he suffered withdrawal symptoms. Plaintiff adds that he was placed on another medication,

Tranzado, but that in June of 2004, Dr. Brussel began to discontinue that medication. 

Plaintiff alleges no facts to indicate that Dr. Brussel knew of and disregarded a serious

risk to plaintiff’s health. There are no facts alleged that indicate the decision to discontinue the

medication was taken in order to cause harm to Plaintiff. That Plaintiff disagrees with that

decision, or suffered adverse symptoms because of it, does not subject Dr. Brussel to liability. 

“A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding

treatment does not give rise to a s 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-06115-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff “must show that the course of

treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that

they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).

In the order dismissing the original complaint, the court informed Plaintiff of the

deficiencies in his complaint, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff had failed

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff has cured the defects

identified in that order, the court recommends dismissal of the claims made in the first amended

complaint with prejudice for failure to state a federal claim upon which the court could grant

relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9

th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given notice

of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

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

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06115-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3