(PC) Hoskins v. Ngyen
1:17-cv-01133
E.D. Cal.Sep 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Hoskins, a pro se inmate, filed a § 1983 suit against Dr. L. Ngyen alleging inadequate medical care at California Correctional Institution.
- Medical history: Hoskins developed cystic acne in 2007, alleges he became immune to prescribed medication during delays, and later developed keloids on jawline, buttocks, and armpits.
- Plaintiff also alleges dietary issues (lactose intolerance) and that stress from pain and lack of medication caused shingles.
- Defendant named is Plaintiff’s primary care physician, alleged to have been aware of these conditions.
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found the allegations conclusory and insufficient to show deliberate indifference.
- Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend within 30 days and provided guidance on required pleading content and limits on amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Hoskins asserts Dr. Ngyen failed to provide timely/appropriate treatment for cystic acne, keloids, dietary needs, and shingles, causing harm | Dr. Ngyen (implicitly) provided care or at least no conscious disregard for a serious risk; delays or differences in treatment are not constitutional violations | Complaint fails to plead facts showing a serious medical need and that Ngyen acted with deliberate indifference; dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend |
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly | Hoskins contends his allegations of harm and awareness by provider are adequate | Court requires factual allegations establishing plausibility and individualized causation | Court found allegations conclusory and speculative; instructed plaintiff to plead specific facts showing defendant’s personal involvement and conscious disregard |
| Scope of permissible amendment | Hoskins seeks to proceed on current claims and possibly add details | Court warns against adding unrelated claims and ‘‘buckshot’’ pleading | Court granted leave to amend limited to curing stated deficiencies within 30 days; amended complaint must be complete and focused |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of Eighth Amendment medical claim)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prisoner medical care claims under the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard of excessive risk)
- Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2012) (difference of medical opinion does not establish deliberate indifference)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (medical differences of opinion)
- Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend pro se complaints)