Dominguez v. Burke

Background

Joe Valdez Dominguez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court had previously screened and dismissed his original complaint, allowing him to amend. It had instructed him to identify what each defendant did wrong, clearly state what treatment was needed but not provided, and explain how the doctors participated in decisions about his care.

Dominguez’s first amended complaint alleged that Doctors Doe and Christopher D. Burke, who worked in the emergency room at Natividad Medical Center, refused to perform gallbladder surgery on March 16, 2020. The medical records attached to the complaint stated that he had gallstones but no signs of gallbladder inflammation and that his laboratory results and vital signs were normal. Dominguez quoted the doctors as saying that they normally would remove his gallbladder but were limiting elective surgeries because of COVID-19. He alleged that Doctor Lavate, who worked at Salinas Valley State Prison, accepted that decision. The complaint suggested, but did not clearly state, that surgery was requested again in July and August 2020 and denied again. Dominguez eventually received surgery on April 22, 2021, and sought $8 million in compensatory and punitive damages from each doctor.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that deliberate indifference to an incarcerated person’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. To plead such a claim, a prisoner must show a serious medical need and deliberate indifference by a defendant. Deliberate indifference requires knowing that the prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarding that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court also explained that a mere difference of opinion about an acceptable medical treatment or diagnosis does not establish deliberate indifference. It concluded that, on its face, Dominguez’s claim described a disagreement about medical treatment. The allegations could be understood either as a disagreement with the doctors’ assessment that his condition was not an emergency or as a disagreement with their decision not to perform elective surgery during the pandemic, when the hospital was limiting exposure risks and preserving beds for emergencies.

The court said Dominguez might be able to correct the pleading problem. To do so, he would need facts showing that the doctors’ decision was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was made while consciously disregarding an excessive risk to his health.

Disposition

The court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered that any second amended complaint be filed by June 3, 2022, use the caption and civil case number in the order, and be labeled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court required the new pleading to provide a complete statement of the claims and warned that failure to file it by the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of all claims. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.