(PC)Dingle v. Tesluk
2:20-cv-01878-JAM-DB
E.D. Cal.Nov 5, 2020Background
- Plaintiff David Dingle, a pro se state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, alleges vision loss from eye surgery.
- He names Dr. Gregory C. Tesluk (surgeon) and D. Azevedo (Health Care Grievance Coordinator), plus ten unnamed Doe defendants.
- Allegation: Tesluk improperly placed a shunt during surgery that tore retinal fibers; plaintiff sought corrective surgery and filed a grievance in October 2019.
- Plaintiff contends Azevedo and Does 1–10 failed to coordinate or provide remedial care after the grievance.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status and assessed fees, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found no cognizable § 1983 claims as pleaded.
- Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 60 days and provided detailed instructions on how to plead an adequate amended complaint (identify defendants, allege personal participation, short/plain statement of claims, numbered paragraphs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP application | Dingle submitted an indigency declaration to proceed without prepaying fees | No contest noted in screening order | IFP granted; initial partial fee assessed and monthly collections ordered |
| Eighth Amendment — Dr. Tesluk (medical care) | Tesluk improperly placed a shunt during surgery causing retinal tear and substantial vision impairment; seeks corrective surgery and damages | Allegations are too brief and describe at most medical error or negligence, not deliberate indifference; timing/location of surgery not alleged | Dismissed for failure to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; plaintiff may amend to allege facts showing serious need and deliberate indifference |
| Eighth Amendment — Azevedo (grievance coordinator) | Azevedo, responsible for coordinating care, ignored October 2019 grievance and failed to obtain corrective care | Plaintiff did not allege how Azevedo learned of the need, what actions Azevedo took or failed to take, or any personal participation demonstrating deliberate indifference | Dismissed for failure to plead personal participation or awareness sufficient to show deliberate indifference; amendment allowed with specifics |
| Doe defendants (unnamed officials) | Does 1–10 share responsibility for medical care and failure to act | Naming unnamed defendants without alleging when/where/how each acted is insufficient under § 1983; plaintiff must show personal participation | Claims against Does dismissed as not cognizable as pleaded; plaintiff may amend but must identify each defendant and facts linking them to violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference subjective standard)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (two-element framework for Eighth Amendment medical claim)
- Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (medical differences of opinion not § 1983)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolousness standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 pleading standard)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (personal participation requirement for § 1983 liability)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (link between defendant action and constitutional deprivation)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (harmful delay as evidence of deliberate indifference)