Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00963/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00963-0/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 

CHARMAR JO MONN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR, et al., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 19-00963 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 dentist in the B-yard at Salinas Valley State Prison 

(“SVSP”), where he is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis which will be addressed in a separate order. 

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 

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 

Case 5:19-cv-00963-EJD Document 8 Filed 07/09/19 Page 1 of 3
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 

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 a filling was put in his mouth that was not needed, and that the 

filling has given him much pain and suffering. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that the 

dentist that put the filling in his mouth “admitted mistake was made.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

claims that due to the negligence of the dentist, he is no longer able to eat properly on the left 

side of his mouth. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks damages. (Id.) 

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). 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. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d 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. at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). 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. Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Here, Plaintiff alleges that the dentist admitted that 

he had made a “mistake,” which does not indicate that the dentist knew that Plaintiff faced 

a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk when he applied the 

unnecessary filling. 

Case 5:19-cv-00963-EJD Document 8 Filed 07/09/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Furthermore, Plaintiff specifically characterizes the dentist’s actions as 

“negligence.” (Compl. at 3.) However, 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 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); 

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); see, e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 

F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding no merit in claims stemming from alleged delays 

in administering pain medication, treating broken nose and providing replacement crutch, 

because claims did not amount to more than negligence); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 

(mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not 

violate a prisoner’s 8th Amendment rights). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s negligence claim 

against the SVSP dentist must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the 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.19\00963Williams_dism(ftsac) 

7/9/2019

Case 5:19-cv-00963-EJD Document 8 Filed 07/09/19 Page 3 of 3