Wilkins v. Smith
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-06426
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Wilkins v. Smith, Judge Gilliam dismissed the prisoner’s amended federal claims without leave to amend after screening, leaving state-law claims unscreened.
Timothy D. Wilkins’s federal constitutional claims were dismissed without leave to amend. Daniel Smith and the unidentified correctional officer obtained judgment in their favor. The court did not screen Wilkins’s remaining state-law claims.
What happened
In Timothy D. Wilkins v. Daniel Smith, et al., Timothy D. Wilkins, a prisoner representing himself, alleged that prison medical staff denied or interfered with medical testing and treatment for an ulcer and injuries he attributed to poisoning. He brought constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law, along with state-law claims.
The court reviewed the second amended complaint under the required screening process for prisoner lawsuits. It ruled that the allegations against Daniel Smith described, at most, a disagreement about medical treatment and did not show that Smith knowingly disregarded a serious medical risk. The court also found the allegations against the unidentified officer speculative and unsupported.
Judge Gilliam dismissed the federal constitutional claims without leave to amend, declined to screen the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Wilkins v. Smith · No. 4:25-cv-06426
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
Timothy D. Wilkins, an inmate at California State Prison–Lancaster, represented himself in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The second amended complaint named San Quentin State Prison doctor Daniel Smith and an unidentified San Quentin correctional officer as defendants. Wilkins alleged that, while previously housed at California Institute for Men, he was poisoned and developed an ulcer. He claimed that Smith refused to order an upper endoscopy, a colonoscopy, or a specialist consultation, and that the unidentified officer falsified or prevented a blood-count examination. He alleged that these actions were part of an effort to conceal injuries caused by the alleged poisoning.
Wilkins also asserted claims under California’s Bane Act and California Government Code § 845.6. The court stated that his second amended complaint was the operative complaint because an amended complaint replaces earlier complaints.
Screening standard
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or officer. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought monetary relief from an immune defendant. The court applied the same general standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
To state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must allege both a serious medical need and that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A disagreement between a prisoner and medical personnel about appropriate treatment generally does not establish deliberate indifference. Negligence or medical malpractice, by itself, also does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Claims against Daniel Smith
The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against Smith. It said the complaint did not provide facts allowing a reasonable inference that Smith knew that failing to order the requested procedures created a significant risk of substantial harm. According to the complaint and its exhibits, Smith believed that omeprazole and sucralfate adequately addressed Wilkins’s stomach problems, and the court noted that later medical records did not support Wilkins’s ulcer allegations. The court also stated that an August 2024 endoscopy and colonoscopy were negative for an ulcer and that the doctor interpreting those results recommended continuing medication while evaluating other possible causes.
The court further stated that it did not have to accept as true unsupported allegations that Wilkins was poisoned, that prison officials conspired to conceal the poisoning, or that doctors falsified medical reports. It concluded that the allegations against Smith amounted at most to a difference of opinion about medical treatment and dismissed that Eighth Amendment claim without further leave to amend because Wilkins had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiency.
Claim against the unidentified officer
The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim based on the allegation that the unidentified officer falsified a refusal to prevent Wilkins from receiving a blood-count test. The court found the claim speculative and conclusory, noted that it depended on an ulcer-and-internal-bleeding allegation contradicted by the medical records attached to the complaint, and found no facts showing that the officer knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court also stated that an action could not proceed against an anonymous defendant in part because it would be effectively impossible for the United States Marshal to serve that defendant. The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend.
State-law claims and disposition
The court stated that no cognizable federal claim remained. It declined to screen the Bane Act and California Government Code § 845.6 claims because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to amend. It entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Wilkins and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.