Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02951/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02951-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAVAR LESTER BLUEFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-02951-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:19-cv-02951-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/31/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff states that he received inadequate medical care. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en 

banc). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two 

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

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.” Id. 

The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and 

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly 

Case 4:19-cv-02951-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/31/19 Page 2 of 4
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are 

examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 

1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 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). The prison official must 

not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official 

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the 

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and 

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” 

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff states that he experienced a painful sore in his right nostril which was 

leaking an unknown substance and swelled. Defendant, a nurse, examined plaintiff, 

even though a certain machine did not work and said he did not see anything, and it was 

probably a pimple. Due to more pain and leakage from his nose plaintiff went two more 

times to see defendant but did not receive proper treatment for the pain and swelling. He 

states he should have been provided pain medication and antibiotics. Plaintiff was 

referred to a doctor but was transferred before that occurred. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to provide more 

information. Plaintiff must more thoroughly describe his medical condition and 

demonstrate that it was a serious medical condition. He must also describe how 

defendant was deliberately indifferent in the treatment he received and why pain 

medication and antibiotics should have been provided. In addition to providing more 

information in an amended complaint, plaintiff may choose to attach any medical 

paperwork to the amended complaint regarding his medical care and the underlying 

medical problem at issue in this action. 

Case 4:19-cv-02951-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/31/19 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than 

September 3, 2019, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this 

order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended 

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the 

claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure 

to file amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action. 

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 31, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-02951-PJH Document 8 Filed 07/31/19 Page 4 of 4