Remund v. Zamudio, 3:16-cv-00426

Plaintiff Eugene M. Remund, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued prison doctors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of adequate medical care.
Remund filed IFP; after initial deficiency he was granted IFP and the complaint underwent screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The district court dismissed the original and amended complaints for failure to state a claim, gave leave to amend, and accepted a second amended complaint (SAC) for service.
Defendant Dr. Zamudio moved to dismiss the SAC, arguing the SAC lacked facts showing deliberate indifference and that medical records contradicted plaintiff’s allegations.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; the district court adopted the report and entered judgment for defendants.
The Ninth Circuit referred Remund’s appeal to the district court to determine whether IFP status on appeal should continue or whether the appeal is frivolous; the district court found the appeal frivolous and revoked IFP status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SAC states an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim	Remund alleged denial of adequate and competent medical treatment	Zamudio argued SAC alleges only negligence/gross negligence and medical records contradict deliberate-indifference theory	Court held SAC failed to plead facts showing conscious disregard of an excessive risk; dismissal proper
Whether further amendment could cure the pleading defects	Implied that prior amendments and opposition showed merit	Court noted two opportunities to amend produced no facts meeting deliberate-indifference standard	Court held additional amendment would be futile; dismissal with prejudice appropriate
Whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith for appellate IFP purposes	Remund appealed the adverse judgment	Defendants implicitly argued appeal lacks arguable legal or factual basis	Court held appeal frivolous under Neitzke and revoked appellate IFP status
Standard for distinguishing malpractice from constitutional violation	Remund relied on alleged inadequate care	Zamudio relied on precedent that negligence or malpractice alone is insufficient for § 1983	Court applied Ninth Circuit test: negligence/gross negligence ≠ deliberate indifference; plaintiff’s facts did not meet the constitutional threshold

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous-appeal standard: lacks arguable legal or factual basis)
Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1996) (IFP/frivolous appeal standards in Ninth Circuit)
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (isolated neglect or malpractice does not establish deliberate indifference)
Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (deliberate-indifference requires medically unacceptable treatment chosen in conscious disregard of excessive risk)