(PC) McGhee v. Kushner, 2:17-cv-02059

Plaintiff Ralph McGhee, a pro se prisoner, sued two prison dentists (William Kushner III and Vincent Hu) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
McGhee alleges defendants required him to sign a dental "refusal" form when he could not attend an appointment due to illness while other inmates were not required to sign such forms.
He asserted an equal protection claim (Fourteenth Amendment) based on differential treatment and an Eighth Amendment harassment claim alleging defendants forced him to sign the form to cause psychological harm.
The magistrate judge screened the first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 8, concluding the equal protection claim is serviceable.
The judge found the Eighth Amendment harassment claim legally deficient: plaintiff’s allegations of psychological harm and unusually gross conduct were conclusory and lacked factual detail showing actual psychological injury or how the conduct met the objective and subjective Eighth Amendment standards.
Because amendment could not cure the deficiency, the magistrate recommended dismissing the Eighth Amendment claim and proceeding only on the equal protection claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether requiring McGhee to sign a refusal form states an Eighth Amendment harassment claim	Forcing McGhee to sign was calculated and unusually gross, intended to cause psychological damage	Requiring a refusal form is not conduct calculated to inflict psychological harm and plaintiff has not alleged actual psychological injury or sufficiently particular facts	Dismissed: allegations are conclusory and fail to plead objective harm or facts showing a culpable state of mind; claim cannot be cured by further amendment

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires complaints to be simple, concise, and direct)
Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint must give fair notice of claims and grounds)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (conclusory legal statements insufficient under pleading standards)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from denial of basic human needs, including medical care)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment requires objectively serious harm and a sufficiently culpable state of mind)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (conditions of confinement subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (prison conditions may be restrictive yet still lawful absent Eighth Amendment violation)
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986) (prison officials must provide basic necessities and safety)
Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136 (9th Cir. 1987) (verbal harassment supports Eighth Amendment claim only if calculated to cause psychological damage)
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (verbal comments must be unusually gross and cause actual psychological injury to state Eighth Amendment claim)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend may be denied when deficiencies cannot be cured)