Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00244-0/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

EDWARD R. SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0244 MCE GGH P

vs.

S. HUBBARD, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application using the

form for a habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but he seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, even stating that he is challenging a condition of confinement. In addition,

petitioner has failed to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or to pay the required filing fee. See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Petitioner claims to have been waiting for well over a year for surgery and to have

trouble sleeping. Petition, p. 4. 

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

Case 2:07-cv-00244-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/06/07 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

2

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 

1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam). 

Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed and petitioner, as plaintiff, will be granted

leave to file, within thirty days, an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner, as plaintiff,

must file a complaint that complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 8. On the form,

petitioner may be framing a colorable Eighth Amendment claim, however, he does not name any 

defendants, other than “respondent” Warden Hubbard in the caption, does not link any conduct

of Hubbard’s to a constitutional deprivation he might allege, nor does he state the relief he seeks. 

Rule 8 requires “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against

them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991)). Accord Richmond v.

Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (amended complaint with vague and

scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8.)

Should petitioner, as plaintiff, seek to frame a claim of inadequate medical care in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful

to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were

objectively serious, and that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853

(9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). The requisite state of mind for a medical claim is “deliberate

indifference.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992). 

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could

result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Indications

that a prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment are the following: the existence of an

injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

Case 2:07-cv-00244-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/06/07 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

3

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900

F. 2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200-01

(9th Cir. 1989). McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) the Supreme Court

defined a very strict standard which a plaintiff must meet in order to establish “deliberate

indifference.” Of course, negligence is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, 114 S. Ct. at 1978. 

However, even civil recklessness (failure to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm

which is so obvious that it should be known) is insufficient. Id. at 836-37, 114 S. Ct. at 1979. 

Neither is it sufficient that a reasonable person would have known of the risk or that a defendant

should have known of the risk. Id. at 842, 114 S. Ct. at 1981. The petition will be dismissed, but

plaintiff will be granted leave to file a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Should petitioner seek to proceed as plaintiff in a civil rights action, he must file a

complaint on the form to be provided by the court, within thirty days, and in addition, must make

the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) or pay the filing fee. The filing fee for a civil

rights action ($350.00) substantially exceeds the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas petition. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The petition is dismissed with leave granted for petitioner, as plaintiff, to

proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by filing a complaint on the form to be provided by the

court, within thirty days; 

2. Petitioner, as plaintiff, must also submit, within thirty days from the date of

this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form

provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee; 

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with any part of this order will result in a

recommendation of dismissal of this action;

Case 2:07-cv-00244-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/06/07 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

4

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a form for filing a civil

rights action by a prisoner in this district as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis

by a prisoner; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this case as one brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DATED: 4/6/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

smit0244.ord

Case 2:07-cv-00244-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 04/06/07 Page 4 of 4