The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SOLOMON JAMES M. ANDREWS, Case No. 25-cv-09804-JSC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
9 v. TO AMEND
10 SUI QINGBO, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12 INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) proceeding without
14 an attorney, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative complaint is the
15 First Amended Complaint1, and it names three SVSP medical staff members as defendants: Dr.
16 Sui Qingbo, Dr. Darren Bright, and Nurse H. Thornton. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) For the reasons
17 discussed below, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim capable
18 of judicial determination. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
19 BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges he has a bullet “bouncing” in his “chest and back area.” (Id. at 2.) On
20
November 25, 2024, Defendant Dr. Qingbo told him x-rays showed “no bullet so she can’t give
21
[him] outside help.”2 (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dr. Bright sent Plaintiff “a copy of
22
the same paper Dr. Sui Qingbo gave me stating” the x-rays showed no evidence of a bullet. (Id.)
23
Plaintiff filed a grievance and was told he was “not going to get outside help.” (Id. at 3.)
24
Plaintiff alleges Judith Gaveia (who is not a Defendant) “seen plaintiff pain [sic] and
25
26
1 The case was previously assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen, who concluded the
27
original claim did not state a cognizable claim for relief and ordered Plaintiff leave to file an
1 ordered outside x-rays.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, these x-rays showed “two fragments in
2 Plaintiff[‘s] left lobe and Plaintiff was experiencing pain.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges:
3 Still with the finding of the broken bullet, Plaintiff has still been
denied to see a specialist our [sic] surgeon. And now its blood in
4 stool, and Doctor have not called Plaintiff for the final x-ray to
satisfy her denial. Taken in November 2025. And [Defendants
5 have] denied the need to get this lead out [of] my body no matter the
after effects. And Sui Qingbo has stopped Plaintiff from seeking
6 outside help when going man down refuse to let Plaintiff go out to
medical CTC to seek a second observation. October 8, 2025, man
7 down Dr. Sui Qingbo said she knows about me send me back.
8 (Id.)
9 Plaintiff alleges the x-ray “technician told [Dr. Qingbo] the bullet was in a bad spot,” but
10 Dr. Qingbo “still say she don’t see what the technician seen [sic].” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
11 Defendant Nurse “H. Thornton stated this to[o] and told me to go back to my cell.” (Id.)
12 Plaintiff seeks money damages, “to be seen by an outside specialist and surgeon,” and a
13 “permanent walker.” (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
14
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
15
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
16
1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
17
the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
18
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
19
§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901
20
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
22
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
23
statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
24
which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to
25
state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
26
provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
27
1 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
2 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a
3 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its
4 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
5 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
7 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
8 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
9 42, 48 (1988).
10 LEGAL CLAIMS
11 Plaintiff’s allegations, even when liberally construed in his favor, do not state a plausible
12 claim for the violation of his constitutional rights.
13 Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth
14 Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
15 104 (1976). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a
16 substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate
17 it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-
18 patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”
19 Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Similarly, a showing of nothing more
20 than a difference of medical opinion between medical professionals as to the need to pursue one
21 course of treatment over another is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate
22 indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Shapley v.
23 Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[D]ifferences of
24 opinion in medical treatment . . . are not enough to sustain an Eighth Amendment claim.”).
25 Plaintiff’s allegations of pain and blood in his stool support a reasonable inference he had a
26 serious medical need, but he has not alleged facts that support a reasonable inference Defendants
27 were deliberately indifferent to that need. Plaintiff does not allege any doctor or other qualified
1 bullet fragments in his torso and that Plaintiff does not need medical attention from a specialist or
2 surgeon outside of the prison, let alone that they found this opinion medically unacceptable.
3 Indeed, the only other person in the First Amended Complaint identified as a doctor is Defendant
4 Dr. Bright, whom Plaintiff sues for supporting Dr. Qingbo’s medical opinions. Defendant Nurse
5 Thornton also allegedly agreed with Dr. Qingbo. The x-ray technician’s alleged reading of the x-
6 ray results does not support a reasonable inference Dr. Qingbo’s reading was medically
7 unacceptable because a technician cannot plausibly be viewed as having greater expertise than a
8 medical doctor in making diagnostic and treatment decisions based upon x-ray results. Compare
9 Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding reliance by prison officials
10 upon a second medical opinion which a reasonable person would likely determine to be inferior to
11 one from a more qualified medical authority may amount to an Eighth Amendment violation).
12 And, under Franklin, Plaintiff’s own disagreement with Dr. Qingbo’s medical decisions is not
13 sufficient, without more, to support a reasonable inference that she, or the other Defendants who
14 agreed with her, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Franklin, 662 F.2d
15 at 1344.
16 Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint to allege facts that
17 state a plausible claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
18 CONCLUSION
19 For the foregoing reasons,
20 1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim capable of
21 judicial determination.
22 2. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint on or before May 8, 2026. The
23 Second Amended Complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order
24 (No. C 25-9804 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED SECOND AMENDED
25 COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because a Second Amended Complaint completely replaces the
26 original and First Amended Complaints, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
27 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from his prior complaints by reference; he must
] file a Second Amended Complaint within the designated time, or if it is not sufficient, this case
2 || may be dismissed.
3 3. It is Plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
4 || informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
5 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to
6 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
7 || Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a
8 showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 || Dated: April 9, 2026
1]
g ne
5 CQUELINE SCOTT CORL
13 United States District Judge
(14
15
16
(17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28