United States District Court, C.D. California
WILLIAM M. MENTZER, Plaintiff,
v.
J. VAIKUTYTE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
March 11, 2016, William M. Mentzer (“Plaintiff”),
a California state prisoner at California State Prison, Los
Angeles County in Lancaster, California proceeding pro se,
filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Dkt. No. 1). On June 1, 2016, the Court dismissed the
Complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 6). On June 20,
2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (“FAC,
” Dkt. No. 7).
Congress
mandates that district courts screen civil complaints filed
by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental entity or
employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This Court may dismiss
such a complaint, or any portions thereof, before service of
process if the Court concludes that the complaint (1) is
frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1)-(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
For the
following reasons, the Court finds that the First Amended
Complaint must be dismissed. However, leave to amend is
granted.[1]
II.
ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT
The
First Amended Complaint names one Defendant: Dr. Tawfik
Hadaya, M.D., a urologist under contract to provide medical
services to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. (FAC at 3). Dr. Hadaya is sued in his
individual capacity. (Id.).
In or
about March 2015, Plaintiff, who has suffered from benign
prostatic hyperplasia (“BPH”)[2] for many years,
began to suffer from an “outlet partial
obstruction” due to BPH. (Id. at 5). On March
9, 2015, Plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Anna
Chen, referred Plaintiff to a specialist for a bladder
cystoscopy, but she did not order the referral specialist to
perform a biopsy. (See Id. at 5). Plaintiff claims
that, after he underwent multiple “excruciating”
biopsies in 2007, he vowed never to undergo a biopsy or other
“invasive interventions” again, even if doing so
meant risking prostate cancer. (Id. at 5-6).
Plaintiff
maintains that Dr. Hadaya performed a biopsy of
Plaintiff’s prostate urethra in contravention of the
referral order and Plaintiff’s statements that he would
decline consent to a biopsy. (Id. at 6-7). Plaintiff
claims that Dr. Hadaya knew that his conduct risked
“substantial harm” to Plaintiff, but he performed
the biopsy anyway. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff claims that
he is not “repining for any deprivation or denial of
access to health care, but is definitely claiming the
reprehensible attitude and hubris displayed by Dr. Hadaya in
not honoring his patient’s wishes.”
(Id.). Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Hadaya’s
conduct violates numerous professional rules applicable to
surgeons. (Id.). Plaintiff requests that the Court
order a cystoscopy so that Plaintiff can assess the extent of
injuries caused by Dr. Hadaya. (Id. at 7). The First
Amended Complaint does not explicitly specify the relief
sought in this action, although it makes passing reference to
“damages” for “additional, unnecessary pain
and suffering and increased harm.” (Id.).
III.
DISCUSSION
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the
complaint due to defects in pleading. Pro se litigants in
civil rights cases, however, must be given leave to amend
their complaints unless it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lopez, 203 F.3d at
...