Elghembri v. Doe, Dentist

Background

Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people who violate federal rights while acting under state authority. He alleged that unnamed dentists at San Quentin State Prison were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment because they refused to fill a broken tooth.

According to the opinion, the dentists believed the tooth had to be extracted rather than filled and offered to perform the extraction. Elghembri refused that treatment. He also mentioned Dr. Herrera, who gave the same diagnosis, but stated that Herrera was not a defendant. Elghembri named supervising dentist Theodore Ng in the original complaint but alleged no specific facts against him.

Prior Proceedings and Screening

The court previously dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend. It explained that a disagreement between a prisoner and medical providers about whether to use a filling or an extraction generally amounts to a difference of medical opinion, which is not enough to show deliberate indifference. The court also explained that Ng could not be held responsible solely because he was a supervisor; Elghembri needed to allege facts showing Ng was directly involved in the alleged unlawful conduct.

The court reviewed the first amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, which requires courts to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court noted that the amended complaint repeated the same facts and still alleged only a difference of medical opinion. It also concluded that no claim was stated against Herrera, even if he had been named, or against the unnamed supervisory defendants.

Ruling

The court held that Elghembri failed to state a claim for relief because the alleged disagreement over filling versus extraction did not establish deliberate indifference. Judge William Orrick dismissed the federal civil-rights action for failure to state a claim for relief. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.