Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03664/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03664-0/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

ROBERT FRED CRAIG,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03664-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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 4:15-cv-03664-PJH Document 4 Filed 09/03/15 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

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). 

II. 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 4:15-cv-03664-PJH Document 4 Filed 09/03/15 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

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 appears to be diabetic and on March 3, 2015, was supposed to receive 

100 units of Lantus, a long acting insulin. Instead, he states that a nurse gave him 100 

units of regular insulin, which would have killed a normal person, but because plaintiff is 

440 pounds, the extra fat saved his life. Plaintiff was taken to Marin General Hospital for 

treatment that same day. A medical progress report from the prison noted that he was 

treated immediately and responded to the treatment without any serious adverse effects 

other than hypoglycemic symptoms. Plaintiff names as defendants the nurse who gave 

the shot, the chief medical officer of the prison, and the warden. He seeks money 

damages.

To state an Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must show that the defendants 

acted with deliberate indifference. 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, 290 F.3d at 1188. 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).

Case 4:15-cv-03664-PJH Document 4 Filed 09/03/15 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

While this was a serious incident, based on plaintiff’s allegations it appears that

the nurse made a mistake but plaintiff has not shown deliberate indifference. Plaintiff’s 

claim more resembles medical malpractice or negligence which should be brought in 

state court. However, plaintiff will be provided one opportunity to amend to present a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.

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 October 

12, 2015, 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.

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: September 3, 2015

________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

\\CANDOAK\Data\Users\PJHALL\_psp\2015\2015_03664_Craig_v_Davis_(PSP)\15-cv-03664-PJH-_dwlta.docx

Case 4:15-cv-03664-PJH Document 4 Filed 09/03/15 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FRED CRAIG,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03664-PJH 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 3, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert Fred Craig ID: AS6563

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: September 3, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Nichole Peric, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

Case 4:15-cv-03664-PJH Document 4 Filed 09/03/15 Page 5 of 5