1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AHMED MOHAMMAD ELGHEMBRI, Case No. 24-cv-02772-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 11 REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 12

13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Ahmed Mohamed Elghembri alleges that a podiatrist has treated his 15 calluses with surgery rather than by cleaning them. His amended

16 complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915A(a). 18 From the filings, it is clear that doctors treated his calluses with debridement, which 19 is the removal of damaged tissue. This does not constitute surgery, but rather the very 20 cleaning of the calluses that Elghembri sought. And even if it was not the treatment he 21 sought, a disagreement over what treatment should be provided does not constitute 22 deliberate indifference. Moreover, Elghembri admits the treatment provided relief from 23 his pain. This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for 24 relief. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A. Standard of Review 27 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 5 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 6 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 8 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 9 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 10 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting 11 Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 12 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 13 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754–55 14 (9th Cir. 1994). 15 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 16 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 17 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 18 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 19 B. Legal Claims 20 1. Original Complaint 21 In his original complaint, Elghembri alleged that on an unspecified date a podiatrist 22 at San Quentin State Prison, Eman Elmi, performed surgery on his callus without his 23 consent rather than cleaning it as he requested. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 6-8.) From the 24 complaint and the attached documents, it appears that Elghembri has been treated for 25 calluses since at least 2022. (Id. at 26.) These treatments included the removal of 26 damaged tissue (debridement), which does not constitute surgery but rather the very 27 cleaning of the callus that Elghembri sought. The complaint was dismissed with leave to 1 || performed and, because he spoke of treatment in 2022 and 2023 and it wasn’t clear when 2 || the crucial events occurred, what date the procedure was performed. 3 2. First Amended Complaint 4 In his amended complaint, Elghembri alleges that it took over five years of surgical 5 || treatment for him to feel relief and that his doctors never cleaned his calluses. (Am. 6 || Compl., Dkt. No. 13 at 3-4.) From the complaints and filings, it appears that his doctors 7 || treated his calluses by removing damaged tissue (which was debridement, not surgery) and 8 || that the treatment was effective. These allegations fail to state a claim for relief. 9 A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a 10 || substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps 11 to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994) (equating standard with that of 2 criminal recklessness). Here, the doctors provided reasonable medical treatment and 5 13 therefore were not deliberately indifferent. Also, the debridement, that is, cleaning, was S 14 || the treatment Elghembri sought. Even if he sought another treatment than the one 3 15 || provided, that does not amount to deliberate indifference. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d a 16 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a difference of medical opinion as to the need to pursue one

= 17 course of treatment over another is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate 18 || indifference). 19 CONCLUSION 20 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief. 21 || The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: June 18, 2025 , ( . \f Qe 24 M H. ORRIC 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28