Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramirez v. Clark

October 19, 2010

ARTEMIO RAMIREZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEN CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Artemio Ramirez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8, 2008. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(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. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "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 must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct, Iqbal at 1950, and while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not, id. at 1949.

II. Plaintiff's Complaint

A. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California, brings this action against Warden Ken Clark, Dr. Gaedke, and a Jane Doe dental assistant for the wrongful removal of his tooth on September 18, 2007, following his written request to have his loose cap fixed or replaced. Plaintiff, a Mexican national who does not speak, read, or write English, alleges that he unknowingly signed a consent form, having been informed by the dental assistant that he was consenting to having his tooth fixed by the dentist and believing that the fix to be the requested repair or replacement of his cap. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Gaedke failed to discuss the planned course of treatment with Plaintiff despite being aware that Plaintiff was requesting replacement or repair of his cap, and Plaintiff alleges that the removal of his tooth was an exaggerated response to his problem.

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve "the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) "the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,'" and (2) "the prison official 'acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.'" Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

Dr. Gaedke's medical decision to pull Plaintiff's tooth even though Plaintiff submitted a request to have his cap repaired or replaced does not state a claim under section 1983, because a disagreement between a patient and his doctor does not support an Eighth Amendment violation. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In this instance, other than the bare description of the action as exaggerated, there are no facts alleged suggesting anything more than a mere disagreement with Dr. Gaedke's choice of treatment, Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986), and the complaint sets forth no facts supporting a claim that either the Doe dental ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.