Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services

Background

Minh Cong Do, a state inmate, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison and contracted employees of California Corrections Health Care Services. He alleged that Nurse Hakaki carelessly administered a shingles vaccine on March 29, 2023, causing nerve damage, pain, weakness, loss of sensation, and partial loss of mobility in his left arm. Do also alleged that prison medical staff later reviewed his test results, found them within normal limits, and concluded that no follow-up care was needed. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring action, and damages.

Screening standard

Because Do sued governmental entities and employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to 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. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or legal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority.

Eighth Amendment claim

Do alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations showing both a serious medical need and a defendant’s deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires that the defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court held that Do’s allegations were insufficient. It characterized them essentially as a difference of opinion about the appropriate course of treatment. A difference of medical opinion generally does not establish a § 1983 claim unless the chosen treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was selected with conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health. The court stated that Do had not alleged facts showing that the prison and California Corrections Health Care Services medical staff’s conclusion was medically unacceptable or that they consciously disregarded an excessive risk. The court granted Do leave to amend to allege facts showing that each named defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm concerning his left arm.

Malpractice and negligence claims

The court also held that Do’s medical-malpractice and negligence claims were not cognizable under § 1983 because those allegations, by themselves, did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The court stated that those state-law claims had to be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless there was a basis for supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Do had 28 days from the filing date of the order to submit an amended complaint using the required case caption and civil case number and identifying it as an “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims and defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action. The order further stated that failure to respond as required would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The court said Do’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.