Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00641/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00641-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 4.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON O. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID BOLIVAR, M.D.,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-0641 EDL (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis in a separate

order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A. 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).

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

Case 3:16-cv-00641-EDL Document 6 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2014, Defendant Dr. David Bolivar, a surgeon at

Twin Cities Community Hospital, improperly surgically repaired a bilateral hernia on plaintiff. 

On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an administrative appeal complaining of constant

pain and mental anguish, fevers, persistent abdominal pain, and tenderness at the implant

site. In his complaint, Plaintiff implies that the pain and suffering Plaintiff is experiencing

was caused by the surgery performed by Dr. Bolivar.

However, in order to state an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual

punishment as it relates to medical treatment, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a serious

medical need, and (2) the nature of the defendants’ response to that need. See 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 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. See 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). 

Here, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts to suggest that Defendant exhibited

deliberate indifference. At most, Plaintiff’s facts, if presumed true, may lead to a

reasonable inference that Dr. Bolivar was negligent. However, a claim of negligence or

medical malpractice is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eight Amendment. See

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff does not provide any

facts to suggest that, as Plaintiff’s surgeon, Dr. Bolivar knew that Plaintiff faced a

substantial risk of serious harm yet disregarded that risk by failing to take reasons steps to

Case 3:16-cv-00641-EDL Document 6 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

abate it. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is complaining about inadequate pain relief or

improper follow-up treatment, the court notes that it appears that non-defendant prison

medical staff, rather than Dr. Bolivar, who does not work within the prison, assumed

Plaintiff’s follow-up care. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s

complaint is DISMISSED. However, the court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his

complaint to state a claim for relief if he can do so in good faith.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint

must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed 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 and supplemental complaints, 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 an amended

complaint within the designated time and in compliance with this order will result in

the dismissal of this action.

2. It is 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: April , 2016. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

20

Case 3:16-cv-00641-EDL Document 6 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 3