United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
SALLIE
KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
a prisoner at the California Institution for Men (CIM) in
Chino, California, has filed a pro se complaint for damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference
during a dental scaling procedure when he was incarcerated at
the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad,
California.
The
complaint is properly before the undersigned for preliminary
screening because plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction
of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
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
Plaintiff
alleges that on April 9, 2015, CTF dentist E. Rasavi was
deliberately indifferent to his health and safety needs when,
during a scaling procedure on plaintiff's teeth, Rasavi
"knowingly, carelessly and recklessly" cut
plaintiff's gums unnecessarily several times causing
bleeding and later an infection, used excessive amounts of
anesthesia to cover up his actions and burned plaintiff's
lower lip by "knowingly and recklessly" using
faulty equipment. Compl. (ECF No.1) at 8.
Deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth
Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). A "serious medical need" exists if the
failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in
further significant injury or the "unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain." McGuckin v. Smith,
974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle,
429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other grounds by
WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th
Cir. 1997) (en banc); see also Hunt v. Dental
Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (dental
care important medical need of inmates). A prison official is
"deliberately indifferent" only if he knows that a
prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to
abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994).
Neither
negligence nor gross negligence warrant liability under the
Eighth Amendment. Id. at 835-36 & n.4. An
"official's failure to alleviate a significant risk
that he should have perceived but did not . . . cannot under
our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment."
Id. at 838. Instead, "the official's
conduct must have been ‘wanton, ' which turns not
upon its effect on the prisoner, but rather, upon the
constraints facing the official." Frost v.
Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991)).
Liberally
construed, plaintiff's allegations state an arguably
cognizable § 1983 claim for damages against Rasavi for
deliberate indifference to plaintiff's health and safety
and will be ordered served on Rasavi. See McGuckin v.
Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 1992) (deliberate
indifference may appear when prison officials deny, delay or
intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be
shown in the way in which prison officials provide medical
care), overruled on other grounds, WMX
Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th
Cir. 1997) (en banc). But CTF Warden Shawn Hatten and
Secretary of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) Scott Kernan, whom plaintiff names as
additional defendants on the ground that they were charged
with his safety and welfare, will be dismissed because there
is no indication whatsoever that they knew that plaintiff
faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that
risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. See
Farmer, ...