Elghembri v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- William Orrick
- 3:24-cv-02772
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Elghembri v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Judge Orrick dismissed the civil-rights action for failure to state a claim.
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
What happened
In Elghembri v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri alleged that prison medical providers treated his calluses with surgery instead of cleaning them.
The court found that the providers used debridement, meaning removal of damaged tissue, which the court said was the cleaning Elghembri requested. The court also said that disagreement with a doctor's chosen treatment does not show deliberate indifference, especially because Elghembri acknowledged that the treatment relieved his pain.
Judge William Orrick dismissed the federal civil-rights action during required screening for failure to state a claim for relief. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the file.
The detailed version
- Elghembri v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · No. 3:24-cv-02772
- William Orrick
- June 18, 2025
Background
Ahmed Mohammad Elghembri filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning treatment of calluses while he was incarcerated. He alleged that a podiatrist treated his calluses with surgery rather than cleaning them as he requested. The opinion identifies the podiatrist as Eman Elmi and states that the treatment occurred at San Quentin State Prison.
In the original complaint, Elghembri alleged that Elmi performed surgery on a callus without his consent. The court dismissed that complaint with leave to amend because the records indicated that the treatment was debridement—the removal of damaged tissue—rather than surgery, and the date of the relevant procedure was unclear.
Screening and Legal Standard
Because the action involved a governmental entity, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right under the Constitution or federal law was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law. For medical care, a prison official is deliberately indifferent when the official knows of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards it by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the allegations did not establish deliberate indifference. It found that the doctors treated Elghembri’s calluses by removing damaged tissue, which was debridement rather than surgery and constituted the cleaning Elghembri sought. The court further concluded that the treatment was effective and provided relief from his pain.
The court stated that even if Elghembri wanted a different treatment, a disagreement about which medical treatment should be provided does not, by itself, establish deliberate indifference.
Disposition
The court 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.