Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01969/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01969-0/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 

THOMAS WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MELODY SAMULSON, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 18-01969 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a psychologist, Dr. Melody Samuelson, at the Napa 

State Hospital. After an initial screening, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend for Plaintiff to attempt sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim 

against Defendant. (Docket No. 7.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, (Docket No. 10, 

hereinafter “Am. Compl.”), and exhibits, (Docket No. 12). 

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 

Case 5:18-cv-01969-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 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 Californi

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 id. § 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). 

 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. Plaintiff’s Claims 

 Plaintiff claims that on July 24, 2015, during a substance recovery group session, 

Defendant Dr. Melody Samuelson, a psychologist at Napa State Hospital, told him the 

following: “Tom you will kill yourself, you will die. Yea you will I’m certain of it. Tom 

are you listening to me? Listen to what I’m saying listen to the sound of my voice you will 

kill yourself. Tom look at me look at my face, remember what I look like you will kill 

yourself, Tom if I were you I would kill myself [sic].” (Am. Compl. at 2.) When he 

responded and asked her, “why am I going to kill myself?” Plaintiff claims that the “coprovider” Patrice Davis spoke up and said, “I think what she is talking about is with the 

potency of the drugs today if you used you might O.D.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that for the 

next two years, he suffered from Dr. Samuelson’s statements, and that they still “haunt” 

him. (Id.) Plaintiff’s last personal interaction with Dr. Samuelson was during a treatment 

team conference shortly thereafter, sometime during August 2015, but before September 6, 

2015, when he filed a complaint regarding the conference. (Id., Ex. C.) During this 

meeting, Plaintiff claims he felt “verbally attacked” when he asked why Dr. Samuelson 

told him to kill himself, and that the treatment team refused to discuss it together. (Id. at 2-

3.) There is no allegation that Plaintiff had any further interaction with Dr. Samuelson 

after that conference. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff claims that thereafter, he filed complaints and 

Case 5:18-cv-01969-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 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 Californi

a

talked to various healthcare professionals and other treatment teams about Dr. Samuelson’s 

statements over the course of the following two years. (Id. at 3.) In May 2017, he “won 

restoration of sanity” and was released to a program in Fresno, California. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Plaintiff claims that there he became “psychotic,” during which he became “obsessed with 

the statements Dr. Samuelson had made and acted on her suggestions and tried to end [his] 

life.” (Id. at 4.) Then on October 13, 2017, Plaintiff stuck a toothbrush in his eye in an 

attempt to commit suicide; his outpatient status was revoked and he was remanded back 

into custody. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he attempted suicide “as a result of Dr. 

Samuelson’s instructions.” (Id.) 

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is 

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 

509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). A mentally ill prisoner may establish unconstitutional treatment 

on behalf of prison officials by showing that officials have been deliberately indifferent to 

his serious medical needs. See Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 

1994); see also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982) (mental health care 

requirements analyzed as part of general health care requirements). 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. Doty, 37 F.3d at 546. Deliberate 

indifference requires a showing that prison officials possess a sufficiently culpable state of 

mind. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Specifically, it must be shown 

both that officials were subjectively aware of the serious medical need and failed to 

adequately respond to that need. Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2010). Additionally, the officials’ actions must be the cause of the injury suffered as a 

result of their deliberate indifference. Id. at 1098. 

 Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference 

against Defendant Dr. Samuelson because he cannot establish that she had the sufficiently 

culpable state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. First of all, assuming that Defendant 

Case 5:18-cv-01969-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 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 Californi

a

Samuelson made the alleged statements, there is no allegation that she made such 

statements believing that Plaintiff would actually attempt to take his life based on her 

“instructions.” According to Plaintiff, another healthcare provider, Patrice Davis, who was 

present during the group meeting, interpreted Defendant Samuelson’s statements as a 

warning that Plaintiff might overdose due to the “potency of the drugs today.” See supra 

at 2. Accordingly, it cannot be said that these allegations establish that Defendant 

Samuelson intended her comments to be a “suggestion” that Plaintiff actually kill himself. 

Furthermore, nowhere during the two-year period thereafter is it alleged that Defendant 

Samuelson was directly responsible for treating Plaintiff’s mental health such that she was 

subjectively aware of his obsession with her statements and failed to adequately respond to 

his mental health needs. Plaintiff alleges that he continued to receive treatment for his 

mental health needs throughout the two-year period from many other healthcare providers 

to whom he made aware his obsession with Defendant Samuelson’s statements. See supra 

at 3. Nevertheless, Plaintiff still managed to gain “restoration of sanity” and was released 

to an outpatient program. See supra at 3. Plaintiff makes no claim that any of these 

healthcare providers acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in 

doing so. 

In conclusion, Plaintiff allegations fail to establish that Defendants Samuelson was 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs where his allegations show that he 

continued to receive treatment for his mental health needs throughout the two-year period 

following her alleged statements, such that it cannot be said that she was subjectively 

aware that a failure to treat Plaintiff’s condition on her part could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Doty, 37 F.3d at 

546. Furthermore, the fact that other healthcare professionals deemed Plaintiff “sane” to 

warrant release to an outpatient program was not attributable to Defendant Samuelson. 

Accordingly, it cannot be said that it was due to any action or inaction by Defendant 

Samuelson that caused Plaintiff’s injury – i.e., attempted suicide while at an outpatient 

Case 5:18-cv-01969-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 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 Californi

a

program – when she was not responsible for determining his fitness for such a program or 

otherwise involved in Plaintiff’s release. Id. at 1098. 

Based on the foregoing, the amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to 

amend because Plaintiff was already afforded one opportunity to amend and the Court 

finds no good cause to grant him another opportunity where the deficiencies from the 

original complaint remain the same. Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821, 830 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend particularly broad where 

plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim for which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.18\01969Webster_dism(ftsac) 

3/25/2019

Case 5:18-cv-01969-EJD Document 14 Filed 03/25/19 Page 5 of 5