United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER OF SERVICE RE: ECF NOS. 1, 10
BEELER United States Magistrate Judge.
Marion Sims, an inmate currently housed at the California
State Prison - Sacramento, filed this pro se
prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF
No. 2.) The court reviewed the complaint and
dismissed it with leave to amend so that Mr. Sims could
provide the true name of a defendant. Mr. Sims then filed a
one-page “amended complaint” that contains no
allegations but does provide the true name of the defendant.
This order construes the “amended complaint” to
be an amendment to the complaint, and orders service of
process on that one defendant.
Sims alleges the following in his complaint: On April 11,
2014, an unidentified dentist at Salinas Valley State Prison
performed unauthorized cosmetic surgery on Mr. Sims.
“The dentist cut 2 of [Mr. Sims'] side teeth in
half, ” damaging his nerves and making it painful to
chew hard food. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The dentist was
“deliberat[ely] indifferent to the pain he knew he
could cause” Mr. Sims. (Id.)
Sims' “amended complaint” identifies the
dentist as D. Scanlon. (ECF No. 10.) The “amended
complaint” contains no other allegations.
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). Pro se complaints must
be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
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).
indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs
violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against
cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). To establish an Eighth Amendment
claim on a condition of confinement, such as medical care, a
prisoner-plaintiff must show: (1) an objectively,
sufficiently serious, deprivation, and (2) the defendant was,
subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate's
health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834 (1994). Serious medical needs may include dental
care needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d
198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989).
court construes the “amended complaint” (ECF No.
10) to be an amendment to the complaint (ECF No. 1), rather
than an actual amended complaint. The difference is that an
amendment will be read together with the complaint, whereas
an amended complaint would supersede the original complaint.
See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc).
complaint, as amended, alleges that Dr. Scanlon performed
unauthorized and damaging dental work that caused pain to Mr.
Sims. A cognizable claim Eighth Amendment claim is stated
against Dr. Scanlon for deliberate indifference to Mr.
Sims' dental needs.
Liberally construed, the complaint, as amended, states a
cognizable § 1983 claim against Dr. D. Scanlon for
deliberate indifference to Mr. Sims' ...