Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02271/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02271-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn N. James
Defendant
Christopher Lee Outley
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE OUTLEY, No. CIV S-06-2271-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

GLENN N. JAMES,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on October

16, 2006. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names Glenn N. James, M.D., a prison doctor, as the defendant. Plaintiff

states that, on October 23, 2005, he injured his right middle finger and was taken to the Central

Treatment Center for emergency medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant “observed”

his finger and “informed plaintiff that the plaintiff’s injured finger was just dislocated.” He

states that defendant then grabbed his injured finger and “began pulling the plaintiff’s injured

Case 2:06-cv-02271-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 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

2

finger hard without any anesthesia.” According to plaintiff, defendant then administered two

injections of lidocaine into the injured finger, one on the left side of the finger, and one on the

right side. Plaintiff states that, after the injections, his finger became numb and defendant again

pulled the injured finger. 

Plaintiff alleges that, the following day, he reported to the medical technician that

his finger was swollen and was causing him extreme pain. Plaintiff states that the medical

technician said that, because it was the weekend, he would have to wait until Monday. On

Monday plaintiff was escorted back to the Central Treatment Center, where an x-ray was taken. 

The x-ray technician informed plaintiff that he had a “50% dislocation with a fracture.” Plaintiff

was then seen again by defendant. Plaintiff states that defendant said “What did you do? I

thought I had put it back in place.” He told defendant that he had not done anything to his

finger. According to plaintiff, defendant then repeated the lidocaine injection procedure. 

Plaintiff states that defendant then grabbed and pulled his injured finger extremely hard until he

“felt and heard his injured finger tear and snap.” Plaintiff was then taken for more x-rays. 

Plaintiff claims that defendant then told the x-ray technician: “This time make the x-rays look

right.” Defendant then replaced the splint on plaintiff’s injured finger. 

Despite reporting continuing pain and swelling, plaintiff was not seen again by

any medical personnel until three weeks later when he was seen by defendant. Plaintiff alleges

that, at this visit, defendant “only looked at the plaintiff’s injured finger.” Following all of this,

plaintiff filed an inmate grievance “claiming medical negligence on the part of defendant

James.” According to plaintiff, after he filed the grievance he was taken to Northern Nevada

Medical Center where surgery was performed on plaintiff’s finger. Plaintiff states:

. . . [The surgeon] informed the plaintiff that if the plaintiff would

have been seen . . . a month earlier he would have been able to repair the

plaintiff’s injured finger so that the plaintiff would be able to bend

plaintiff’s finger again, but since the plaintiff was seen after a whole

month had past [sic] by, [the surgeon] would not be able to repair

plaintiff’s injured finger so that it would be able to bend.

Case 2:06-cv-02271-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 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

3

Plaintiff states that another surgery was performed nine months later and that prison medical

officials were instructed to remove the sutures at a later date. According to plaintiff, that date

has past and the sutures have not been removed and that the “skin has grown over the sutures

within the plaintiff’s injured finger.” 

At first blush, it would seem that the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is a claim

based on professional negligence, which would not be cognizable in an action under § 1983. 

The court notes, however, plaintiff’s allegation that, after the injection procedure at the second

examination, defendant told the x-ray technician to “make the x-rays look right.” If true, this

suggests that defendant knew that the pulling and injection procedure would have no effect and

that it was up to the x-ray technician to cover up by somehow manipulating the x-ray image to

show that plaintiff’s finger had, in fact, been effectively treated. This in turn suggests an

improper motive behind defendant’s pulling and injection procedure, perhaps even the desire to

inflict pain. 

The complaint thus appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a

reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that

service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. 

Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies

with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal

of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

JAMES;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one

summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed; and

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02271-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 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

4

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint.

DATED: December 8, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE OUTLEY, No. CIV S-06-2271-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GLENN N. JAMES,

Defendant.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the complaint.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02271-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 4