Carrillo v. Steven

Background

Oscar Alejandro Carrillo, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five dental and medical-care providers. He alleged that the providers incorrectly diagnosed a mouth infection, broke his jawbone while extracting his wisdom teeth, gave him pain medication that caused constipation, provided laxatives that did not satisfactorily address the constipation, and incorrectly attributed bruising and swelling to an autoimmune condition rather than complications from the extractions. He also alleged that another doctor disagreed with Dr. Shin’s opinion about the cause of the bruising and swelling.

Carrillo moved to amend his complaint and submitted a proposed amended complaint. He also moved for appointment of counsel. The court stated that it granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Legal standard

Because Carrillo sued governmental medical-care providers as a prisoner, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying only on labels or conclusions.

The court explained that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. To show deliberate indifference, a prisoner must allege that an official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk through a purposeful act or failure to act. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement over medical treatment is not enough.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Carrillo’s allegations suggested, at most, negligence rather than deliberate or purposeful disregard of serious medical risks. The opinion states that Carrillo received multiple examinations, medication, surgery, transportation to an outside hospital when his needs became emergent, opportunities to communicate his concerns, and follow-up care and adjustments. The court found that this attention to his medical needs did not plausibly show a deliberate failure to provide proper dental or medical care.

The court also held that the alleged disagreement about whether Carrillo had an infection did not support a § 1983 claim, even if Carrillo’s view was correct. It found no allegation that the providers deliberately broke his bone or intentionally disregarded a risk that it would break; instead, Carrillo described the break as resulting from negligence. The court likewise found that the allegations about pain and constipation medication lacked specific facts showing deliberate conduct or disregard of a known risk. Finally, the disagreement between Dr. Shin and another doctor about the cause of the bruising and swelling did not establish deliberate indifference.

Rulings

The case was DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court GRANTED the motion for leave to amend, making the amended complaint the operative complaint; DENIED the motion for appointment of counsel; and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.