Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gonzalez v. Adams

January 29, 2009

MICHAEL A. GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARRELL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE (Doc. 11) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

I. SCREENING ORDER

Michael A. Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 13, 2006. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2007. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff's amended complaint is presently before the Court for screening.

A. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is currently a state prisoner at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility ("CSATF") at Corcoran, California, where the acts he complains of occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants: Darrell G. Adams, Warden of CSATF; Edward S. Alameida, former Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"); Edgar Castillo, Chief Medical Officer ("CMO") of CSATF; Doctors D. Deering and Snow; Troy Dulay and Wright, Medical Technical Assistants ("MTA") at CSATF; Senior MTA D. Overly; Correctional Officer ("C/O") Diaz; Kenny and Narvez, Supervising Cook I at CSATF; Does 1 through 5 of the CDCR's Health Care Services Division; Does 6 through 8, head physicians; Does 9 through 13, radiologists and radiology assistants; and Does 14 through 50.

Plaintiff alleges that on March 2001, he was assigned to work detail in the dining room of CSATF D Facility. Plaintiff had told Diaz, Kenny, Narvez, and certain Does that inmates were working in hazardous conditions, namely the slippery floors. Plaintiff informed them that slip resistant footwear and slip-resistant mats should be used for workplace safety. Diaz, Kenny, Narvez, and certain Does did not act to alleviate this workplace hazard. (Doc. 11, pp. 7-7.)

On August 4, 2001, while working in these conditions, Plaintiff slipped, breaking his leg and severely gashing his lip. Kenny and Diaz sent Plaintiff to the medical clinic. Dr. Deering examined Plaintiff and sutured Plaintiff's lip. Plaintiff informed Dr. Deering of the great pain in his foot/leg and stated the possibility of a broken bone. Deering, without objective evaluation of the area, called it a sprain. Plaintiff asked for pain medication, an x-ray to rule out a broken bone, and a walking device. Dr. Deering refused to order any of these items. Plaintiff's pain increased over the evening. On August 5, 2001, Plaintiff visited the medical clinic, approached Wright, and demanded to see a physician. Wright provided Plaintiff with a wheelchair, and told Plaintiff to return the next day. (Doc. 11, pp. 8-9.)

On August 7, 2001, Plaintiff returned to the medical clinic. Dr. Snow examined Plaintiff's leg by roughly and forcefully grabbing, pulling, and twisting Plaintiff's foot and toes. She insisted that it was not a break but a sprain. Dr. Snow told Plaintiff to move his foot and stop being a baby. Plaintiff reacted by angrily cursing at Dr. Snow, at which point she removed him from the clinic and made him wait last. Dr. Snow never recalled Plaintiff for evaluation, but did order an x-ray for Plaintiff. Dulay and Wright, both present at Snow's interaction with Plaintiff, did not give him pain medication, but informed Plaintiff that he could appeal Snow's conduct. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11.)

On August 8, 2001, Plaintiff asked to be x-rayed. Wright informed Plaintiff that the x-ray machine was not operational at the time. On August 9 and 10, Plaintiff was informed again that the x-ray machine was not operational. On August 11, 2001, Plaintiff insisted that he see a doctor or have an x-ray performed. Wright informed Plaintiff that the x-ray technician was not there. Plaintiff then barricaded himself in the medical clinic and demanded that a sergeant come to resolve this problem. The on-duty sergeant arrived and arranged for Plaintiff's escort to the CSATF CTC. (Doc. 1., pp. 11-12.)

Dr. Deering at the CTC examined Plaintiff's leg. Upon observing Plaintiff's severely swollen, bruised, and discolored leg, Dr. Deering ordered Plaintiff specially transferred to Corcoran Community Hospital for x-rays. The radiology report confirmed that Plaintiff had broken his leg. Plaintiff was returned to CSATF CTC, where Dr. Deering constructed a one-half cast for Plaintiff's leg. Plaintiff received pain medication on August 13, 2001. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13.) Plaintiff alleges a deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a failure to provide safety, and a failure by supervisory personnel to properly train, supervise, or discipline. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

C. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.