×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Ninth Circuit: Prisoner May Amend Complaint To Allege Deliberate Indifference
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Arizona state
prisoner, who alleged he contracted hepatitis from a blood plasma drawing
procedure and that upon diagnosis he was not adequately treated by prison
medical staff, should be allowed to amend his complaint in order to allege
facts sufficient to support his claim of deliberate indifference.
Prisoner Preston Broughton brought pro se civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Cutter Laboratories and Arizona State Prison medical
staff alleging that he had contracted "infectious hepatitis" as a result of
Cutter's blood drawing procedures and that, upon being diagnosed with the
disease and admitted to the prison hospital, he received no treatment for
six days. Broughton was one of a number of prisoners who, with the apparent
consent and cooperation of the prison, participated in Cutter's blood
plasma purchasing program.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona allowed Broughton to
proceed in forma pauperis, but "dismissed his complaint on the ground that
'[t]he allegations of the complaint are not cognizable under the Civil
Rights Act.'" Broughton appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded holding:
1) A prisoner's civil rights complaint may be dismissed if it is deficient
or frivolous; however, "dismissal is proper only if it is absolutely clear
that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."
2) "[A] prisoner's complaint is cognizable under § 1983 if it alleges"
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
3) Given the chance to amend his complaint, Broughton could possibly allege
sufficient facts to support an action for deliberate indifference to his
medical needs.
See: Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980).
prisoner, who alleged he contracted hepatitis from a blood plasma drawing
procedure and that upon diagnosis he was not adequately treated by prison
medical staff, should be allowed to amend his complaint in order to allege
facts sufficient to support his claim of deliberate indifference.
Prisoner Preston Broughton brought pro se civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Cutter Laboratories and Arizona State Prison medical
staff alleging that he had contracted "infectious hepatitis" as a result of
Cutter's blood drawing procedures and that, upon being diagnosed with the
disease and admitted to the prison hospital, he received no treatment for
six days. Broughton was one of a number of prisoners who, with the apparent
consent and cooperation of the prison, participated in Cutter's blood
plasma purchasing program.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona allowed Broughton to
proceed in forma pauperis, but "dismissed his complaint on the ground that
'[t]he allegations of the complaint are not cognizable under the Civil
Rights Act.'" Broughton appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded holding:
1) A prisoner's civil rights complaint may be dismissed if it is deficient
or frivolous; however, "dismissal is proper only if it is absolutely clear
that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."
2) "[A] prisoner's complaint is cognizable under § 1983 if it alleges"
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
3) Given the chance to amend his complaint, Broughton could possibly allege
sufficient facts to support an action for deliberate indifference to his
medical needs.
See: Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories
| Year | 1980 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 07/01/1980)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. CA 77-3957
[3] 1980; 622 F.2d 458
[4] July 1, 1980
[5] PRESTON BROUGHTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CUTTER LABORATORIES; HOSPITAL STAFF OF ARIZONA STATE PRISON; DR. CLEMENTS; DR. HYDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
[7] G. Kip Edwards, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Jack B. Owens, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.
[8] Jay R. Adkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., argued, for defendants-appellees; Bruce E. Babbit, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., on brief.
[9] Before Trask and Skopil, Circuit Judges, and Thompson,*fn* District Judge.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] This is an appeal from the summary dismissal of a pro se complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[12] The appellant, Preston Broughton, is a state prisoner. Appellant filed this civil rights action in district court, joining Cutter Laboratories and the Arizona State Prison Hospital staff as defendants and alleging that he had contracted infectious hepatitis while participating in Cutter Laboratories' blood plasma purchasing program. Cutter, with the apparent consent and cooperation of the prison, bought blood plasma from the prisoners, including appellant. Appellant alleged in his complaint that he contracted hepatitis as a result of Cutter's blood drawing procedures. Appellant further alleged that upon diagnosis of his disease he was admitted to the prison hospital for treatment, but that he received no medical care at all for the first six days after his admission. Appellant charges that this was entirely inadequate treatment.
[13] On June 3, 1977, the district court granted Broughton's request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint on the ground that "(t)he allegations of the complaint are not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act." Broughton then brought this appeal.
[14] In Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970), this court established specific procedures that a district court must follow in processing a state prisoner's civil rights complaint unless the complaint is deficient or frivolous. If the plaintiff's action is frivolous, then the district court has the discretion to dismiss. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). However, dismissal is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Stanger v. City of Santa Cruz, 653 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1980); Potter v. McCall, supra, 433 F.2d at 1088).
[15] In this case, we believe it to be a close question whether Broughton's complaint is frivolous or not. Under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976), a prisoner's complaint is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it alleges
[16] (a) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners . . .. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.
[17] Estelle, supra, 429 U.S. at 104-05, 97 S. Ct. at 291 (footnotes omitted). Before it can be said that a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, however, the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere "indifference," "negligence," or "medical malpractice" will not support this cause of action. See Estelle, supra, 429 U.S. at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. at 291-292.
[18] After examining Broughton's complaint, we cannot say that it would be impossible for him to allege facts sufficient to support such an action for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 429 U.S. 97 at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. 285 at 291-292, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 . As it stands, his complaint does not provide us with enough information to determine whether he could maintain such a cause of action or not. Consequently, we remand this case to the district court with instructions that Broughton be given an opportunity to amend his complaint within such a period of time as the district court shall establish. REVERSED and REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[19] *fn* Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, United States District Judge, for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. CA 77-3957
[3] 1980; 622 F.2d 458
[4] July 1, 1980
[5] PRESTON BROUGHTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CUTTER LABORATORIES; HOSPITAL STAFF OF ARIZONA STATE PRISON; DR. CLEMENTS; DR. HYDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
[7] G. Kip Edwards, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Jack B. Owens, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.
[8] Jay R. Adkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., argued, for defendants-appellees; Bruce E. Babbit, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., on brief.
[9] Before Trask and Skopil, Circuit Judges, and Thompson,*fn* District Judge.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] This is an appeal from the summary dismissal of a pro se complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[12] The appellant, Preston Broughton, is a state prisoner. Appellant filed this civil rights action in district court, joining Cutter Laboratories and the Arizona State Prison Hospital staff as defendants and alleging that he had contracted infectious hepatitis while participating in Cutter Laboratories' blood plasma purchasing program. Cutter, with the apparent consent and cooperation of the prison, bought blood plasma from the prisoners, including appellant. Appellant alleged in his complaint that he contracted hepatitis as a result of Cutter's blood drawing procedures. Appellant further alleged that upon diagnosis of his disease he was admitted to the prison hospital for treatment, but that he received no medical care at all for the first six days after his admission. Appellant charges that this was entirely inadequate treatment.
[13] On June 3, 1977, the district court granted Broughton's request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint on the ground that "(t)he allegations of the complaint are not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act." Broughton then brought this appeal.
[14] In Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970), this court established specific procedures that a district court must follow in processing a state prisoner's civil rights complaint unless the complaint is deficient or frivolous. If the plaintiff's action is frivolous, then the district court has the discretion to dismiss. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979). However, dismissal is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Stanger v. City of Santa Cruz, 653 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1980); Potter v. McCall, supra, 433 F.2d at 1088).
[15] In this case, we believe it to be a close question whether Broughton's complaint is frivolous or not. Under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976), a prisoner's complaint is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it alleges
[16] (a) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners . . .. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.
[17] Estelle, supra, 429 U.S. at 104-05, 97 S. Ct. at 291 (footnotes omitted). Before it can be said that a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, however, the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere "indifference," "negligence," or "medical malpractice" will not support this cause of action. See Estelle, supra, 429 U.S. at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. at 291-292.
[18] After examining Broughton's complaint, we cannot say that it would be impossible for him to allege facts sufficient to support such an action for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 429 U.S. 97 at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. 285 at 291-292, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 . As it stands, his complaint does not provide us with enough information to determine whether he could maintain such a cause of action or not. Consequently, we remand this case to the district court with instructions that Broughton be given an opportunity to amend his complaint within such a period of time as the district court shall establish. REVERSED and REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[19] *fn* Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, United States District Judge, for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.