Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04361/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04361-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL COLLINS, 3rd,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

DAN MARTIN, Unit Supervisor;

ANNABELL, Registered Nurse;

PHARMACY of NAPA STATE

HOSPITAL,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4361 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a civil rights case filed by a patient at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”) in Napa,

California, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,

and plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleges that on August 3, 2007, he went to the NSH Pharmacy to receive his

ordinary dose of 25 milligrams of Risperidone. A registered nurse, whom he identifies only by

her first name “Annabelle,” administered the injection. On August 10, 2007, the Unit

Supervisor, defendant Dan Martin informed plaintiff that he had accidentally been given an

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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

“overdose” of 50 milligrams, and that he would be monitored until August 13 when a

psychiatrist would see him. Plaintiff was seen by a psychiatrist, who opined that the 50

milligrams was not an “over-dose,” but rather within an acceptable range of dosage for

plaintiff’s condition. Plaintiff states that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and as a result

was “traumatized” by being told he had been given an “overdose” of the medication. 

ANALYSIS

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).

It is unclear whether plaintiff is a prisoner or not. “Prisoner” is defined in Section

1915A as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of,

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violation of criminal law or the terms and

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(c). Plaintiff says that his paranoid schizophrenia developed from a vicious attack on

him in “my cell” in 1974. Thus is appears he was a prisoner at that time, but whether he is one

now – that is, whether he is still serving his sentence – is unexplained. The Court will assume

that he is a prisoner, but if that is incorrect, he should explain in the amendment which is

permitted in the discussion below. 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

The original complaint was dismissed for two reasons. First, plaintiff had only named

NSH as a defendant, which cannot be sued in federal court because it is a state agency. See

Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364(9th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits in

federal court against state agencies). He was given leave to amend to name individual

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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

defendants responsible for any alleged constitutional violations. He has cured this deficiency

insofar as he has named two individual defendants – Nurse “Annabelle” and Unit Supervisor

Dan Martin, whom he alleges were responsible for giving him the wrong dose of medication

and for telling him he had an overdose. Plaintiff also includes as a defendant the NSH

Pharmacy, which as part of NSH, is a state entity entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

See ibid. Consequently, the claims may not proceed against defendant NSH Pharmacy.

The second deficiency in the original complaint was that plaintiff claimed that he had

been subject to medical malpractice. Only 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 claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient

to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61

(9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff was informed that in order to state a constitutional claim arising from

the medical care given him, therefore, he must allege facts sufficient to make it plausible that

defendants – whoever he might name – were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need,

rather than just having made a mistake. In his amended complaint, however, plaintiff still

alleges that he was subject to “medical malpractice,” although he also alleges that defendants

acted “maliciously.” The allegations of malice are conclusory, however. He has alleged no

facts suggesting that Annabelle knowingly administered the wrong dose or that Martin, who is

not a psychiatric or medical professional, knew that he would unnecessarily traumatize plaintiff

by telling him he had received an overdose of the drug. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994) (to establish deliberate indifference plaintiff must show defendant knew of and

disregarded substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff). In addition, plaintiff alleges that a

psychiatrist informed within three days that the dose he received was not harmful to him. 

The circumstances alleged in the amended complaint do not state a cognizable claim

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Consequently, plaintiff’s

claims will be dismissed. 

//

// 

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

This case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\COLLINS4361.DSM.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-04361-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 4