Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00212-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Morales
Defendant
Seti C. Scanlan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SETI C. SCANLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00212 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Seti Scanlan (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

February 9, 2015.

1

 He filed a First Amended Complaint on June 8, 2015. He names Psychiatric 

Technician R. Morales as Defendant. 

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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on February 23, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 6
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

“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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, 

California. He was housed at Kern Valley State Prison when and where the events giving rise to this 

action took place. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. On February 3, 2014, Defendant Morales filled his diabetic 

insulin syringe with 40 units of regular (“fast-acting”) insulin. Plaintiff was supposed to receive 40 

units of Lantus (“long-acting”) insulin instead. Plaintiff, not knowing the difference, injected the 40 

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 6
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

units of regular insulin. Approximately 30 minutes later the tower officer told Plaintiff to report to 

Morales. Morales stated she made an error by giving him fast-acting insulin instead of long-acting 

insulin. Plaintiff was then transferred to the correctional treatment center to stabilize his blood 

sugar. Plaintiff states he was in danger of falling into a diabetic coma or dying. Plaintiff’s blood 

sugar was then stabilized. Plaintiff was later informed by other psychiatric technicians that in the 

future Plaintiff should watch the preparation of his insulin so he could verify that the insulin was 

correct. 

On March 9, 2014, Plaintiff was waiting for his insulin. Defendant Morales prepared 

Plaintiff’s first shot, but had her back turned to Plaintiff as she put the insulin into the syringe. 

Plaintiff stated he wanted to see the label of the bottle to be sure it was Lantus. Defendant responded 

that she would redo the insulin in his view so he would have no doubts but Plaintiff stated, 

“Nevermind, just show me the label.” Plaintiff saw that the label said “Lantus” so he injected the 

first shot.

After the first shot, Plaintiff was to take a second shot of regular insulin. Prior to preparing 

the second shot, Plaintiff told Morales to draw up the insulin in his view so he could be assured that 

no errors would occur. Morales then intentionally turned her back and drew up the insulin. Plaintiff 

had no visual proof that the insulin was “regular” insulin so he refused to inject the second shot.

Plaintiff claims Defendant was negligent in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments in giving him the wrong insulin on February 3, 2014. He further claims Defendant 

violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for blocking his view 

when she drew Plaintiff’s regular insulin shot.

Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of $70,000.00, and punitive damages 

in the amount of $50,000.00, against Defendant Morales. He further requests injunctive relief 

ordering all state psychiatric technicians to draw insulin in plain view. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need

a. Legal Standard

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must 

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 6
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

show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)) (quotation marks 

omitted). The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) a serious 

medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and (2) the defendant’s response 

to the need was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Deliberate indifference is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s 

pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference. Id. (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). Deliberate indifference may be manifested when prison officials deny, delay or 

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison 

physicians provide medical care. Id. (citation and quotations omitted). Where a prisoner is alleging 

a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the 

prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Berry v. Bunnell, 39 

F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), 

overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en 

banc).

b. Findings

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. First, 

as Plaintiff admits, his claim concerning Defendant Morales’s administration of the wrong insulin 

amounts to negligence. However, negligence does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need, and Plaintiff makes no showing that Defendant’s actions constituted deliberate 

indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) (The requisite state of mind is 

one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012). Likewise, Plaintiff’s claim concerning Defendant’s 

act of filling the syringe out of Plaintiff’s view does not present a cognizable claim. Defendant did 

not refuse to attend to Plaintiff’s medical needs. His disagreement with Defendant’s manner in 

providing medical care does not give rise to a [section] 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted); accord Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88; Wilhelm, 

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

680 F.3d at 1122-23. 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); accord Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88. Plaintiff fails to 

do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint to present a 

cognizable claim.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may not be imposed 

on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

///

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00212-DLB Document 16 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 6