Opinion
No. C 02-2092 CRB (PR), (Doc #2)
May 2, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking "damages for negligence and future medical expenses." Plaintiff alleges that, on December 28, 2001, he received second degree burns on his left aim and hand because prison officials and Aramark Food Service served scalding coffee "without appropriate drinking cups [being made] available." According to plaintiff, his cup broke shortly after hot coffee was poured in it and the coffee burned him. Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials were "lax in their response to [his] injury" because they did not provide him with medical treatment until the next day.
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief" Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Negligence is not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 n. 4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). Nor is it actionable under § 1983 outside of the prison context. The Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986);Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).
Although regrettable, plaintiffs allegations that he received serious burns due to defendants' negligence must be dismissed because they fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. Similarly, plaintiffs allegations that he did not receive medical treatment until the next day must be dismissed because they amount to no more than a claim for negligence or medical malpractice not cognizable under § 1983. See, e.g., Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding no merit in claims stemming from alleged delays in administering pain medication, treating broken nose and providing replacement crutch, because claims did not amount to more than negligence); O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that isolated occurrence of neglect may constitute grounds for medical malpractice but does not rise to level of constitutional claim for unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain). After all, the attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff was seen by medical staff shortly after he reported the incident, was given ointment and dressing to help heal the burns, and the next day was transported to the medical clinic for further treatment.
It also appears that the action must be dismissed because although plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as to his serious burns claim, he did not do so as to his delay in medical treatment claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [ 42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted").
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 2) is DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED.The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.