Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06299/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06299-0/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL THOMAS RAMSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. WHITLACH, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6299 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION (Doc.

1.) 

 Michael Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

Case 1:04-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 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

2

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 22, 2004, stating that he is seeking

injunctive relief to compel the California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) to do a blood test

to “check up on everything” and make sure that everything is working normally. (Complaint at

3, 4.) Further, if the blood tests reveal that Plaintiff is suffering from “any” kind of disease, he

requests $10,000.00. (Complaint at 3.) 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

"The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual treatment is violated

when officials remain deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of convicted

prisoners." Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical

care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level

of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). 

The “deliberate indifference” standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. 

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second,

the prison official must act with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than

mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner

unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 

Case 1:04-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 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

3

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim for relief under Section 1983 for

violation of the Eighth Amendment. "A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to as 1983 claim." Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff

"must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the

circumstances ... and ... that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to

plaintiff's health." Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1986) (internal citations

omitted). In this instance, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support a claim that

Defendants "[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff's] health or safety."

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. Defendants refusal to conduct an unnecessary blood test at

Plaintiff's request indicates a disagreement with the course of treatment. This is an insufficient

basis upon which to impose liability under Section 1983. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable

Case 1:04-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 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

4

of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the

Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06299-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/26/06 Page 4 of 4