(PC) Polee v. Staggs-Boatright
2:22-cv-01538-DJC-KJN
E.D. Cal.Nov 29, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Adrian Polee, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a psychiatric technician at California State Prison, Sacramento, gave him the wrong medication.
- Alleged effects: dizziness, nausea for two days, and elevated blood pressure; plaintiff seeks defendant’s termination.
- Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request was granted and the court assessed the statutory filing fee and initial partial payment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and federal pleading standards.
- The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim because plaintiff did not allege a sufficiently serious medical need or that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference, finding at most negligence.
- The court granted plaintiff leave to amend and provided instructions for filing a complete amended complaint identifying specific facts and each defendant’s involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference medical claim? | Wrong medication caused physical symptoms supporting an Eighth Amendment claim | No developed defense in record; screening assumes defendant provided medication but not deliberate indifference | Dismissed for failure to plead a serious medical need and deliberate indifference |
| Is negligence sufficient for a § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim? | Alleged negligence and pain and suffering from wrong medication | Implicit defense: conduct, if negligent, is not deliberate indifference | Court: negligence is insufficient; § 1983 claim fails on those facts |
| Should the case be dismissed with or without leave to amend? | Requests relief and seeks termination of defendant; no amended complaint yet | N/A at screening stage | Dismissed but with leave to amend because plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts |
| Is plaintiff entitled to proceed IFP and how is the filing fee handled? | Satisfied § 1915(a) declaration | N/A | IFP granted; statutory fee assessed with initial partial payment and monthly collections under § 1915(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for in forma pauperis dismissals)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires awareness of substantial risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment governs deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (medical malpractice or negligence insufficient for Eighth Amendment)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (definition of serious medical need)
- Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference requires more than ordinary lack of due care)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 liability requires defendant’s personal involvement)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no § 1983 liability without affirmative link between conduct and deprivation)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague conclusory allegations insufficient)