Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05053/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05053-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH W. GOODLOW, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

RICHARD STEWART, M.D., et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5053 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a pro

se civil rights complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging in a

conclusory fashion that medical staff at CTF were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs.

Per order filed on March 19, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint with

leave to amend to allege specific facts showing deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs, if possible. The court explained that a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only 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. Mar. 19, 2010 Order at 2 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994)). The court further explained that plaintiff must "allege specific facts

showing how each named defendant actually and proximately caused the

deprivation of the federally protected right of which he complains." Id. (citing

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Case 3:09-cv-05053-CRB Document 8 Filed 05/11/10 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

27

28 2

Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging that on

March 10, 2009 his cellmate found him in a nonresponsive condition and notified

unit officers. Plaintiff was taken to the prison clinic, where Dr. Bright examined

him and had him transported to Natividad Medical Center (NMC). Emergency

lab worked showed that plaintiff's glucose level had risen to an abnormally high

level and he was admitted and treated at NMC. 

Plaintiff claims that his diabetic coma was caused by CTF's nursing staff's

misdiagnosis of his condition. He alleges that he saw nursing staff several times

before March 10, 2009 complaining of diarrhea, nausea and/or vomiting. They

diagnosed him as suffering from "the Neru Virus" and treated him accordingly,

giving him Pepto Bismol and anti-nausea medication, and administering

intravenous saline solution and recommending lots of fluids and bed rest.

The nursing staff's alleged misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment of

plaintiff's medical condition may have amounted to medical malpractice or

negligence, but not deliberate indifference. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical

condition does not violate a prisoner's 8th Amendment rights) ), overruled on

other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc). Plaintiff may pursue a medical malpractice or negligence

claim in the state courts under California law, but not here under § 1983. It is

well-established that a claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient

to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391

F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th

Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff also alleges that the nursing staff has been deliberately indifferent

to his serious medical needs because they have not facilitated a colon exam and

Case 3:09-cv-05053-CRB Document 8 Filed 05/11/10 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

27

28 3

MRI Dr. Stewart ordered after examining him on December 29, 2009. But such

claim must be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff could not have

exhausted available administrative remedies as to the claim before he filed this

action on October 23, 2009. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th

Cir. 2002) (action must be dismissed unless prisoner exhausted available

administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if prisoner fully exhausts while

suit is pending); see also Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.

2006) (where administrative remedies are not exhausted before prisoner sends 

complaint to court, action will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by

the time complaint is actually filed). 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED under the authority

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The clerk is instructed to enter judgment in

accordance with this order and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.09\Goodlow, K1.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05053-CRB Document 8 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3