Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01051-2/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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

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 complaint

filed on August 16, 2005.

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).

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 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

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,

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 he went to see Dr. Dang at an unspecified

time for a skin problem. Defendant prescribed skin cream for Plaintiff’s skin condition. Plaintiff

contends that the skin cream caused blisters on his face and body. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant’s conduct constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of

the Eighth Amendment.

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

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 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

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,

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

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s conduct in prescribing skin cream for

his skin condition caused skin blisters on his face and body. Plaintiff disagrees with the medical

treatment prescribed by Dr. Dang. 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 he

chooses. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983.

E. CONCLUSION

The court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court will grant

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to cure the

deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how th

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9 Cir. th

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 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

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, as an original complaint,

th

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; Plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01051-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 4