Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05031-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOUGLAS HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE SOKOLOFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05031-JST (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

On November 14, 2014, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State 

Prison (SQSP) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. His 

complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that SQSP staff used excessive force against him and acted with deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, his complaint alleges the following:

On November 19, 2012, plaintiff arrived at SQSP from Solano State Prison. He was 

escorted to the Medical Screening Office by defendant Correctional Officer M. Hutalla. At the 

Medical Screening Office, he entered a room where defendant Registered Nurse Mike Sokoloff 

was waiting to interview him. Hutalla left the room but sat just outside the door.

Case 3:14-cv-05031-JST Document 4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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 California

During the interview, Sokoloff produced a bag of medication that he said was for plaintiff 

and proceeded to remove three capsules from the bag and place them in a cup near plaintiff for 

plaintiff to take. Plaintiff says the capsules were Dilantin pills, which he took to prevent seizures. 

As plaintiff was waiting for some water to take with the capsules, he stated that he would take the 

Dilantin but not the other medication that Sokoloff had for him. Sokoloff told plaintiff that 

plaintiff would have to take all the medication that Sokoloff had for him or none of it. Plaintiff 

responded by again stating that he would only take his seizure medication, and he proceeded to 

take the cup with the Dilantin capsules and put them in his mouth.

Sokoloff then jumped up and started choking plaintiff in an effort to prevent plaintiff from 

swallowing the pills. Hutalla rushed into the room, and Sokoloff stepped back as Hutalla 

attempted to choke plaintiff. Hutalla then pried plaintiff's hands open in search of the pills, which 

at that point plaintiff had already swallowed. As a result of the incident, plaintiff sustained 

injuries to his neck and lower back.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 

claims that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 

Case 3:14-cv-05031-JST Document 4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 5
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 California

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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

1. Excessive Force

A prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including physical 

abuse by guards. Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a 

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)). 

Liberally construed, the complaint states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against Sokoloff and Hutalla.

2. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

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). 

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." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 

F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other 

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

prison official is "deliberately indifferent" if he 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). 

Neither negligence nor gross negligence warrant liability under the Eighth Amendment. 

Case 3:14-cv-05031-JST Document 4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 5
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 California

Id. at 835-36 & n4. An "official's failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have 

perceived but did not, . . . cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment." 

Id. at 838. Instead, "the official's conduct must have been 'wanton,' which turns not upon its effect 

on the prisoner, but rather, upon the constraints facing the official." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991)). Prison officials 

violate their constitutional obligation only by "intentionally denying or delaying access to medical 

care." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. 

Plaintiff claims that Sokoloff acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious 

medical needs. Here, the complaint adequately alleges a serious medical need, i.e., plaintiff's 

seizure condition, but fails to allege that Sokoloff actually failed to treat the condition. Although 

plaintiff claims Sokoloff threatened to withhold his seizure medication on November 19, 2012, 

plaintiff concedes that he took the seizure medication nonetheless. And nowhere in the complaint 

does he claim that he was denied the medication at any other point in time or that prison staff 

failed to treat his condition in any other manner. Stating that Sokoloff assaulted him, while 

sufficient to state an excessive force claim, is insufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. 

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable excessive force claim against SQSP Registered 

Nurse Mike Sokoloff and SQSP Correctional Officer M. Hutalla. Leave to amend will be granted 

so that plaintiff may attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies discussed in relation to his claim for 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Sokoloff. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed and must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order (C 14-5031 JST (PR)) and the words AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a 

complete statement of his claims and will supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers & 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the 

original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.") Therefore, he must repeat 

his excessive force allegations in the amended complaint if he files an amended complaint. 

Case 3:14-cv-05031-JST Document 4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of plaintiff's 

claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. If plaintiff does not wish to file an 

amended complaint, he shall so inform the Court within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of 

this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05031-JST Document 4 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 5