Opinion ID: 608610
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Caldwell

Text: 6 Krause contends that Caldwell acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by administering an excessive dosage of dilantin, failing to supply him with nasal spray and having other inmates help him bathe and change his bedding. 7 Prisoners can establish an eighth amendment violation with respect to medical care if they can prove there has been deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989). The indifference to medical needs must be substantial; inadequate treatment due to negligence or inadvertence is insufficient to state a claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). In order to demonstrate deliberate indifference, prisoners must allege sufficient facts to indicate that prison officials acted with a culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323 (1991). 8 Krause does not dispute that Caldwell contacted Rodriguez for permission to administer dilantin, and that she administered the dilantin in accordance with the neurosurgeon's prescription. The substance of Krause's allegations is that his neurosurgeon prescribed an excessive dosage of dilantin, a claim which he unsuccessfully alleged in a prior action against his neurosurgeon and other University of San Francisco Medical Center personnel. See Krause v. Finch, No. 91-15774, unpublished memorandum disposition (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 1992). Krause's claims that Caldwell administered a drug prescribed in an excessive dosage by a neurosurgeon, failed to supply him with nasal spray and had other inmates help him bathe and change his bedding at most amount to negligence, which is not actionable under the eighth amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Krause's claims against Caldwell.