Summary
finding no deliberate indifference and, at most, negligence where inmate was over-medicated and fell out of his top bunk bed and injured himself
Summary of this case from Rush v. VandevanderOpinion
No. C 02-074 SI (pr)
February 28, 2002
JUDGMENT
This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL INTRODUCTION
Rodney Jackson, currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
BACKGROUND
Jackson's complaint concerns his excessive receipt of medications following his arrest on June 20, 2000. He alleges that when he was arrested, he spoke with a medical technical assistant at the Oakland City Jail who told him he had to see a mental health doctor to obtain his psychiatric medications. He alleges that he was then sent to the county jail and was again told he had to see a mental health doctor for medications, but was given psychiatric medications that night and for the 7-11 days he spent in Santa Rita County Jail. He then was sent to the North County Jail to see a mental health doctor. That doctor called Jackson's pharmacy and confirmed Jackson's psychiatric medication prescriptions. The doctor then immediately gave Jackson medications. Jackson received medications again later that night when he returned to Santa Rita County Jail. Jackson fell out of his top bunk bed the next morning and hurt himself. He alleges that he fell because he was over-medicated: "the Oak office did not let the Santa Rita Medical no they already give me my meds and that night they gave me to much of them medications." Complaint, p. 3. Jackson seeks damages from the defendants.
DISCUSSION
A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief See id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
To establish a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation based on jail staffs failure to attend to an inmate's medical needs, the inmate must establish both (1) a serious medical need and (2) deliberate indifference to that need by jail officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992). A medical need is serious if the failure to treat the inmate's condition could result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. at 1059 (citingEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). Because it appears that Jackson was not yet a convict at the time of the alleged incidents, his claim is considered under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, although the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating the claim. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979); Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). A claim of mere negligence or harassment related to medical problems is not enough to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); 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) (repeatedly failing to satisfy requests for aspirins and antacids to alleviate headaches, nausea and pains is not constitutional violation; isolated occurrences of neglect may constitute grounds for medical malpractice but do not rise to level of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain).
Even liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state at most a claim for negligence. The complaint alleges that Jackson was given too much medication by an entity that did not know that he had already received his medication. Such ignorance is inconsistent with the deliberately indifferent state of mind required for a constitutional violation. The complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile in light of the fact that Jackson has alleged that his fall occurred because an entity gave him too much medication due to ignorance. Although Jackson's allegations do not state a claim for a constitutional violation, this dismissal does not preclude him from filing a claim in state court for negligence.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. The clerk shall close the file.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Docket #2 and #4.) The total filing fee due is $150.00. The initial partial filing fee due for the plaintiff at this time is $1.50. The clerk shall send a copy of this order and the attached instructions to the plaintiff the prison's trust account office, and the court's financial office.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAYMENT OF PRISONERS FILING FEE
The prisoner shown as the plaintiff or petitioner on the attached order has filed a civil action in forma pauperis in this court and owes to the court a filing fee. Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1915, the fee is to be paid as follows:
The initial partial filing fee listed on the attached order should be deducted by the prison trust account office from the prisoner's trust account and forwarded to the clerk of the court as the first installment payment on the filing fee. This amount is twenty percent of the greater of(a) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint/petition or (b) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint/petition.
Thereafter, on a monthly basis, 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account should be deducted and forwarded to the court each time the amount in the account exceeds ten dollars ($10.00). The prison trust account office should continue to do this until the filing fee has been paid in full.
If the prisoner does not have sufficient funds in his/her account to pay the initial partial filing fee, the prison trust account office should forward the available funds, and carry the balance forward each month until the amount is fully paid.
If the prisoner has filed more than one complaint, (s)he is required to pay a filing fee for each case. The trust account office should make the monthly calculations and payments for each case in which it receives an order granting in forma pauperis and these instructions.
The prisoner s name and case number must be noted on each remittance. The initial partial filing fee is due within thirty days of the date of the attached order. Checks should be made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court and sent to Prisoner Accounts Receivable, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102.
cc: Plaintiff Finance Office