1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCUS A. PRICE, Case No. 24-cv-02899-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 AMRIT SAINI, (ECF No. 3) Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under

against a 14 psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), where he has been involuntarily committed. He is 15 GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) due to a lack of funds. For the reasons 16 discussed below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 granted. 18 ANALYSIS 19 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 When a plaintiff is proceeding IFP, as in this case, "the court shall dismiss the case at any 21 time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal 22 (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 23 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."

(e)(2). 24 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

, 25 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 1 which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). Although 2 in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 3 obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 4 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 5 Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 6 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 7 must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."

. 8 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 9 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 10 alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 11

(1988). 12 B. LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff Price has been involuntarily committed at NSH since in 2019 based upon a 14 finding of not guilty of criminal charges by reason of insanity. Defendant, a psychiatrist, is 15 treating him with the antipsychotic medicine Clozapine and other medications, a treatment 16 decision authorized by a “panel.” He complains, as he has in a previous case, Price v. Sabbeen, 17 No. C 24-2379 JSW (PR), that this medication causes adverse side effects. Plaintiff’s allegations 18 do not state a cognizable claim for relief because a disagreement between him and Defendant, who 19 is a doctor, about whether it is medically proper to treat him with these medications despite the 20 side effects. does not amount to deliberate difference, an element of an Eighth Amendment claim. 21 See Franklin v. Oregon,

(9th Cir. 1981) (“A difference of opinion between a 22 prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 23 claim.”); cf. Toguchi v. Chung,

(9th Cir. 2004) (a difference of opinion 24 between medical professionals as to the need to pursue one course of treatment over another is 25 insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference). Even when the complaint is 26 liberally construed, Plaintiff does not allege facts that plausibly show any Defendants violated his 27 Eighth Amendment rights. 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a 3 || cognizable claim for relief. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 10, 2024 6 SO) \ ff Ky 7 It 35 □□ JBFFRIBY)S. WHITE 8 / Wnit¢gd StategDistrict Judge 9 =

10 11 a 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28