From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 1, 1980
622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980)

Summary

holding that amendment should be allowed, unless it is clear amendment would not cure the complaint's deficiencies

Summary of this case from Gumataotao v. BNC Mortg. Inc.

Opinion

No. CA 77-3957.

July 1, 1980.

G. Kip Edwards, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Jack B. Owens, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

Jay R. Adkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., argued, for defendants-appellees; Bruce E. Babbit, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before TRASK and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.

Honorable Bruce R. Thompson, United States District Judge, for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.


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.

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.

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.

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, slip opinion p. 2470, No. 76-2449 (9th Cir. March 24, 1980); Potter v. McCall, supra, 433 F.2d at 1088).

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

[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.

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.

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. 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 291-292. 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.


Summaries of

Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 1, 1980
622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980)

holding that amendment should be allowed, unless it is clear amendment would not cure the complaint's deficiencies

Summary of this case from Gumataotao v. BNC Mortg. Inc.

holding that leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would be futile and "the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment."

Summary of this case from IN RE TFT-LCD

finding it possible that a delay of treatment for six days could constitute deliberate indifference

Summary of this case from Bogan v. Runnels

In Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980), we held that a six-day delay in the treatment of hepatitis, during which time the inmate was in the prison hospital, might constitute deliberate indifference; surely the fifty-four day delay in the treatment of Wood's shoulder caused more pain and showed less concern by prison officials.

Summary of this case from Wood v. Housewright

observing "[m]ere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support a cause of action" under section 1983

Summary of this case from Bustillo v. Beacon

noting that the indifference to the medical needs must be substantial, and mere indifference, negligence, or medical malpractice will not suffice to support the cause of action

Summary of this case from Stuckey v. Juarez

noting it is appropriate to dismiss without leave to amend when it is clear that "the deficiencies of the complaint [cannot] be cured by amendment."

Summary of this case from Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc.

stating "indifference," "negligence," or "medical malpractice" do not support a claim under § 1983

Summary of this case from Gatewood v. Harrington

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Gaines v. Sherman

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Castaneda

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Garza v. Alvara

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Barrios v. Tate

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Gaines v. Sherman

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Hunter v. White

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Gaines v. Horowitz

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Ransom v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Shehee v. Nguyen

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Conerly v. Beard

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Ahdom v. Etchebehere

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Ricks v. Levine

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Derosier v. Kokor

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Hunter v. White

noting mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence do not support a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Gomez v. Stainer

explaining that negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim

Summary of this case from Moody v. Finander
Case details for

Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories

Case Details

Full title:PRESTON BROUGHTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CUTTER LABORATORIES; HOSPITAL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 1, 1980

Citations

622 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1980)

Citing Cases

Ellis v. Corizon, Inc.

Mere indifference, medical malpractice, or negligence will not support a cause of action under the Eighth…

Griffin v. Moon

"Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action."…