Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01051-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Dang
Defendant
William O. Robinson
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

WILLIAM O. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNNY DANG,

Defendants.

 /

1: 05 CV 01051 AWI DLB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

A. INTRODUCTION

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. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s amended

complaint filed on August 9, 2007.

B. SCREENING STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners when they are seeking

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(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.

§ 1915(A)(b)(1). “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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 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

2

467 U.S. 69, 79 (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 (9 Cir. 1981). Reviewing under this th

standard, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint are true. Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The Court must also construe the

complaint in light most favorable to the Plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. 

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

C. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

In the instant case, Plaintiff brings an action against defendant Johnny Dang, a physician

employed at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that on June 15, 2003, he went to see Dr.

Dang for a skin problem. Dr. Dang admitted plaintiff to the hospital on June 25, 2003. 

Defendant prescribed skin cream for Plaintiff’s skin condition. Plaintiff contends after his

medication was stopped, his blisters reappeared and he was re-admitted to the hospital on

December 13, 2004. 

D. DISCUSSION

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 both a subjective and objective element. First, the objective prong requires the

alleged deprivation to be “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994),

citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Second, the subjective prong requires that the

prison official acts with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This

state of mind is more than mere negligence, but less than intentional conduct undertaken for the

very purpose of causing harm. Id. The prison official must know of and disregard an excessive

risk to an inmates health or safety. Id. 

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 a cause

of action for an Eighth Amendment constitutional violation. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories,

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 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

3

622 F.2d 458, 460 (9 Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a th

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, 429 U.S. at

106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9 Cir. 1995). Even gross th

negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood

v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9 Cira. 1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with th

diagnoses or treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891

F.2d 240, 242 (9 Cir. 1989). th

Plaintiff disagrees with the medical treatment prescribed by Dr. Dang. As plaintiff was

previously advised, such disagreement does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The

Constitution protects plaintiff from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, it does

not guarantee that plaintiff will receive the type of medical care he chooses. Thus, Plaintiff has

failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983.

E. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed in its

entirety. In doing so, the court does not recommend that leave to amend be granted as plaintiff

has already been given the opportunity to amend the complaint and was unable to cure the

deficiencies identified by the court. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty (20) days of this order, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 23 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3