Price v. Sabbeen
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-02379
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Price v. Sabbeen, Judge White denied leave to amend and reconsideration because the allegations described negligence, not a constitutional violation.
Marcus A. Price and the doctors at Napa State Hospital named as defendants.
What happened
In Price v. Sabbeen, Marcus A. Price, representing himself, sued doctors at Napa State Hospital under a civil-rights law. The court had dismissed his case for failing to state a valid claim and had not allowed him to amend it. Price then filed an amended complaint, which the court treated as requests to amend and to reconsider the earlier dismissal.
Price alleged that continuing his medication despite harmful side effects amounted to medical malpractice and negligence. The court said that disagreement with medical professionals about the proper course of care, and allegations of negligence or malpractice, do not establish a constitutional violation or support a claim under the civil-rights law he invoked.
Judge Jeffrey White denied both requests. The court concluded that the amended allegations did not change its earlier conclusion that allowing another amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Price v. Sabbeen · No. 4:24-cv-02379
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
Marcus A. Price, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against doctors at Napa State Hospital, where he was involuntarily committed. The court had dismissed the case for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and had not granted leave to amend. Price nevertheless filed an amended complaint.
Requests Before the Court
The court construed the amended complaint as including a request for leave to file an amended complaint and a request for reconsideration of the earlier dismissal order’s decision not to allow amendment.
Court’s Reasoning
Price alleged that continuing his medication despite adverse side effects constituted medical malpractice and negligence. The court stated that medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. It found that the allegations in both the original and amended complaints showed, at most, a disagreement between Price and medical professionals about the proper course of medical care. The court held that such allegations do not amount to constitutional violations or provide cognizable grounds for relief under § 1983.
Because the amended complaint continued to assert claims that were not legally cognizable, the court concluded that amendment would be futile and that leave to amend should not be granted.
Disposition
The court denied the request for leave to amend and denied the request for reconsideration of the dismissal without leave to amend. The opinion does not state that either request was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.