Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649-6/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

DAVID WAYNE WILSON, No. CIV S-05-1649-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc.

21). Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 22).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 5
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

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has been repeatedly

denied special medical permission for items he claims he needs to alleviate back pain and other

problems. In particular, plaintiff has requested, among other things, special pillows, egg-crate

type mattresses, particular blankets, thermal underwear, a straw hat, vitamins, and soft-sole

boots. While some of plaintiff’s requests were partially granted, many of them were denied. 

Plaintiff admits that he was seen by medical professionals with respect to his medical

complaints. The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that, while he was seen by medical

personnel, he was nonetheless denied items essential to his continuing health. Plaintiff

continually refers to medical malpractice in his complaint and states that he served prison

officials with a “. . . medical malpractice suit.” 

Plaintiff’s claim for relief is as follows:

The actions of defendant at all times mentioned herein, defendants

and each of them were acting under color or law, defendants (names

omitted) gives legitimacy to denial of once prescribed medical treatments,

and denial to see doctors in court ordered time constraints and follow up

treatment . . . to receive treatment to relieve pain and suffering. Which is

cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment denial of

medical treatment. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. 

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his Eight Amendment rights with respect

to medical treatment. The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under

which the prisoner are confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which

prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The

Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards,

humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates

the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or

omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of

life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and

wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the

Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious

injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at

105; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental

health needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is

sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant

injury or the “. . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the

condition is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s

daily activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases

than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with

medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,

974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to

decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.

1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical

treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. 

See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also

demonstrate that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give

rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a

difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate

course of treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh,

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

In this case, the court finds that plaintiff has not stated – nor does it appear that he

ever can – a claim under the Eighth Amendment. In particular, plaintiff has not alleged that

defendants’ conduct was so serious such that it resulted in the denial of the minimal civilized

measure of life’s necessities. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, plaintiff has not sufficiently

alleged the objective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. Further, plaintiff has not

alleged that, subjectively, defendants acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of

inflicting harm. See id. 

Finally, it does not appear that plaintiff can amend the complaint to cure these

defects. Throughout the complaint, plaintiff mentions medical malpractice and negligence and

even states that he filed a malpractice suit. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff’s claims stem from

alleged professional negligence and not deliberate indifference. 

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: September 25, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 5 of 5