Patterson v. Balbona

Background

Ronald Patterson, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that on September 4, 2023, something popped in his right leg, causing extreme pain. He believed the leg was broken and requested an X-ray or magnetic resonance imaging scan and immediate treatment at an outside hospital. According to the complaint, medical staff gave him crutches and three Tylenol and told him, “You’re a grown man, you’ll be okay.” He did not receive an X-ray until a week later. After the X-ray, he was sent to an outside hospital, where he learned that his leg was broken and required surgery.

The complaint named doctor Mitzi Balbona and nurse Guillermo Cerda. Patterson alleged that their treatment amounted to deliberate indifference, gross negligence, cruel and unusual punishment, and delay of necessary medical treatment.

Screening and analysis

Because Patterson is a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court held that, read generously, Patterson’s allegation that he reported a broken leg requiring imaging and outside treatment but received only crutches, Tylenol, and a delayed X-ray stated a potentially valid Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. That claim requires allegations showing a serious medical need and that a defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The court also explained that negligence, malpractice, or merely a disagreement about medical treatment is not enough by itself to establish deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the complaint because it was unclear how Balbona and Cerda were personally involved. The complaint did not make clear whether they were the staff members who failed to obtain timely treatment on September 4, 2023, or whether Patterson claimed they provided inadequate treatment after the X-ray.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Patterson was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint using the case caption and number and marking the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and would need to include all claims and defendants Patterson wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The Clerk was directed to provide two copies of the court’s complaint form.

Name discrepancy

The case caption names the defendant as Mitzi Balbona, while the body of the opinion refers to the doctor as Mitzi Balhona. This summary uses “Balbona,” the name in the caption, and identifies the discrepancy.