1:19-cv-01574
E.D. Cal.Apr 8, 2022Background
- Plaintiff James E. Potts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (pain from lung cancer) based on defendants’ pain-treatment choices.
- Original complaint (filed in the Northern District of California) named Drs. Soleimani and A. Youssef; the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint adding Drs. M. Rizk and J. Bentley.
- Plaintiff alleges Youssef and Rizk prescribed pain medication he found ineffective but referred him to a pain specialist (Dr. Rodriguez), who later prescribed gabapentin that relieved his pain.
- Plaintiff alleges Dr. Bentley (at CSP Solano) refused to prescribe gabapentin and told plaintiff he would never receive it while Bentley was his doctor.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim (with alternative transfer of the Bentley claim to Sacramento). The district court adopted the recommendation in part: dismissed Youssef and Rizk without leave to amend, dismissed Bentley for failure to state a claim but granted leave to file a second amended complaint as to Bentley, and transferred the case to the Sacramento venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Youssef and Rizk violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to prescribe gabapentin | Youssef and Rizk should have prescribed gabapentin initially; their regimen failed to relieve pain | They provided pain medication and referred plaintiff to a pain specialist; differences in treatment choices do not constitute deliberate indifference | Dismissed without leave to amend: allegations show treatment and referral; at most a difference of medical opinion, not deliberate indifference |
| Whether Bentley’s alleged refusal to prescribe gabapentin states an Eighth Amendment claim | Bentley told plaintiff he would never receive gabapentin and failed to provide effective treatment | FAC lacks an allegation that Bentley refused all pain medication; facts are insufficient | Dismissed for failure to state a claim but plaintiff granted leave to amend as to Bentley (possible to cure) |
| Whether transfer from Northern District to Eastern District was proper | Transfer was improper | Transfer proper because defendants reside and events occurred in the Eastern District under venue statute | Transfer to Eastern District proper; further proceedings to occur in Sacramento venue |
| Whether further leave to amend should be granted | Plaintiff requests leave to file a second amended complaint to cure defects | Court notes prior leave and that amendment would be futile for some defendants | Court: grant no further leave as to Youssef and Rizk (futile); allow leave to amend as to Bentley within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (mere difference of medical opinion insufficient to establish deliberate indifference)
- Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (difference of opinion among medical professionals does not amount to deliberate indifference)
- Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989) (disagreement over diagnosis or treatment is not an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference between prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities does not give rise to a § 1983 claim)