McDowell v. Murphy

Background

Gregory Cash McDowell, who was confined at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Trevor Murphy. McDowell also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court said that request would be addressed separately.

McDowell described his claims as “malpractice and professional negligence” and “miscarriage of authority.” He alleged that on April 20, 2022, he injured himself while playing basketball in a recreation area because of county-issued shoes and a slippery floor. He alleged that Deputy Murphy contacted medical staff, but that McDowell was not seen for almost two days. McDowell further alleged that, after Lieutenant Zehner learned of the situation, deputies escorted him to medical care and made him walk a strenuous distance on his injured leg. He said he was diagnosed with a torn meniscus and returned to his cell without support such as a wheelchair. He also alleged that a physical therapist later observed continued swelling and the torn meniscus, and that his requests for pain medication and written grievances went unanswered. He sought damages and corrective surgery and claimed permanent disability.

Screening and analysis

Because McDowell was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state law.

The court found McDowell’s allegations insufficient to state a § 1983 claim against Deputy Murphy. McDowell named only Murphy as a defendant, but the complaint did not clearly explain how Murphy’s conduct caused McDowell’s injury or violated a constitutional right. The court also stated that McDowell did not explain how Murphy’s actions, or the actions of any other person, amounted to malpractice or negligence. Even if adequately alleged, the court said, malpractice and negligence are not by themselves cognizable under § 1983 because they do not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

The court gave McDowell leave to amend to attempt to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. That type of claim requires allegations showing both a serious medical need and a deliberately indifferent response. The court explained that deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard of that risk; merely failing to recognize a risk, even when an official should have recognized it, is not enough. The court also instructed McDowell that a defendant may be liable only if the defendant’s own act, participation, or legally required omission proximately caused the deprivation of a federal right.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. McDowell was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint using the case caption and number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that any person not named in the amended complaint would no longer be a defendant. It further ordered that failure to respond as directed would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.