United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING
G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge
court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 14,
2017, why this court should not recommend denial of his
request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees.
state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate
medical care, a plaintiff must allege acts or omissions that
constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32
(1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
is advised that "[a] difference of opinion between a
physician and a prisoner - or between medical professionals -
concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount
to deliberate indifference." Hamby v. Hammond,
821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation
[t]o show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff "must
show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was
medically unacceptable under the circumstances" and that
the defendants "chose this course in conscious disregard
of an excessive risk to the plaintiff's health.
Id.; see also Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d
769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986) ("state prison authorities have
wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical
complaint's allegations and exhibits allege differences
of opinion between a neurologist at Calipatria state prison,
who prescribed shoe inserts in August 2012, and (1) Dr.
Cheng-Wu at CSP-LAC, who gave Plaintiff a medical chrono that
excluded shoe inserts and assessed Plaintiff as a medium risk
patient rather than a high risk patient in November 2012 and
(2) Dr. Marcello at CSP-LAC, who gave Plaintiff a medical
chrono that did not contain medical devices and assessed
Plaintiff as a low risk patient in April 2013. (Compl. at
complaint about his grievances also allege differences of
opinion. Plaintiff alleges that, in his opinion, only a
neurologist should have interviewed Plaintiff. According to
the complaint, Dr. Swaby conducted an examination at the
first level in 2015 that Plaintiff believes was insufficient.
Dr. Morris, at the first level, wrongly found no reason to
modify the decision regarding shoe inserts based on medical
necessity. Dr. Francis claimed to have checked the computer
back to 2012 but found no prescription for shoe inserts. P.
Finander, the chief medical executive, did not find that
Plaintiff had a medical prescription for shoe inserts.
discussed above, a difference of opinion between medical
professionals - or between Plaintiff and a medical
professional - as to appropriate medical care is insufficient
to state a claim for deliberately indifferent medical care.
Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1092; Franklin v. State of
Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference
of opinion between prisoner and prison medical authorities).
Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the
course of treatment doctors chose was medically unacceptable
under the circumstances and that defendants chose this course
in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to
Plaintiff's health. Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d
1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). The complaint's current
allegations are insufficient. E.g., Whitney v.
Walker, 631 Fed.Appx. 493, 494 (9th Cir. 2016)
foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show
cause in writing, by no later than March 14, 2017, why the
court should not recommend that the ...