Brian Lee Hanson Jr v. Sinavsky
2:11-cv-07586
C.D. Cal.Feb 8, 2012Background
- Pro se plaintiff Brian Lee Hanson, Jr. filed a First Amended Complaint under Bivens against MDC Medical Doctor Subnoski.
- Plaintiff sues the defendant solely in his official capacity.
- Plaintiff alleges the prescribed medications ignored warnings and were inappropriate for his seizure disorder, causing a massive seizure.
- Plaintiff claims the overdose led to eight days in ICU, unconsciousness, speech loss, inability to walk, and memory loss.
- Plaintiff alleges defendant ignored inmate requests for medical staff contact.
- Plaintiff seeks $750,000 in damages and injunctive relief directing a medical board review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiff state a deliberate indifference claim? | Hanson alleges improper medication caused seizures and harm despite warnings. | Allegations amount to medical negligence, not deliberate indifference. | Deliberate indifference claim dismissed; leave to amend granted. |
| Is there an exhaustion requirement for potential FTCA tort claims? | Plaintiff may be pursuing a medical-negligence claim against the United States. | Administrative exhaustion is required under FTCA before suit. | Exhaustion required; dismissal or amendment to address FTCA exhaustion. |
| Is defendant immune from suit in official capacity for monetary claims? | Seeking monetary damages against doctor in official capacity. | Bivens suits can be maintained against individuals in their personal capacity; official-capacity claims for monetary relief are barred. | Doctor immune from monetary claims in official capacity; may only be sued in individual capacity for money damages; injunctive relief must name proper defendant. |
| Can the plaintiff cure the defects by amendment? | Amendment could state a valid claim. | Defects are fundamental and may not be curable. | Leave to amend granted; Second Amended Complaint due within 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (deliberate indifference requires culpable state of mind and harm)
- Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2006) (prisoner must show objectively serious harm and purposeful conduct)
- Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1995) (elements of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference involve conduct)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (causal link between conduct and harm required)
- Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference entails more than negligence)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (negligence in treating condition not by itself a constitutional violation)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (malpractice or gross negligence alone does not state a §1983 claim)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc considerations for pro se plaintiffs in screening)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (professional duty and culpable state of mind required for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1987) (Bivens actions cannot be maintained in official capacity for monetary relief)