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.

Hoffman v. Khatri

December 9, 2009

GARRETT HOFFMAN, CDCR #F-39330, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. KHATRI; C. COOK; S. AYMAR; N. TETTEH; C. NAVAMANI; C. LAI; S. KO, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LAI'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6)

[Doc. No. 21]

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Garrett Hoffman ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison ("CEN") in Imperial, California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 27, 2009.

On July 22, 2009, the Court granted Defendant Khatri, Cook and Ko's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6).*fn1 Because Defendants Aynmar, Tetteh, Navamani and Lai had yet to be served, the Court simultaneously ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his claims against these parties should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). See July 22, 2009 Order [Doc. No. 14] at 9-10.

On August 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an extension of time in which to serve Defendants Aynmar, Tettah, Navamani and Lai [Doc. No. 17]. On September 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's request and re-directed U.S. Marshal service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) [Doc. No. 19].

On October 1, 2009, Defendant C. Lai filed a Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 21]. Plaintiff has filed no Opposition.*fn2

The Court has determined that Defendant's Motion is suitable for disposition upon the papers without oral argument and that no Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks is necessary. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1(d)(1), 72.3(e).

II. PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On August 5, 2007, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Centinela State Prison ("CEN"). (See Compl. at 1.) While Plaintiff was working in the Facility "D" kitchen, he slipped on a puddle of water on the floor, fell and caused injury to his back. (Id. at 4.) A Medical Technical Assistant ("MTA") placed Plaintiff on a backboard. (Id.) However, Plaintiff claims he fell off the backboard because he was not strapped down by the MTA. (Id.)

Plaintiff was brought to Centinela's Central Health facility, lifted onto a gurney but again, fell off the backboard. (Id.) Doctor Goodhealth examined Plaintiff and prescribed Aurazine for his "excruciating pain." (Id.) Plaintiff was also prescribed ibuprofen but it failed to mitigate his pain. (Id.) From the date of his injury to the present, Plaintiff claims he continued to "inform medical staff and custody of his continued severe excruciating lower back pain." (Id.) From August 22, 2007 to April 20, 2008, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his prescribed medications. (Id. at 5.)

On November 30, 2007, Health Care Appeals Coordinator C. Cook reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and found that prison officials had complied with orders written by Dr. Aymar on December 6, 2007 to refer Plaintiff to an Orthopedic doctor, and had provided Plaintiff with Tylenol, Naprosyn and physical therapy. (Id.) On December 12, 2007, Defendant Cook partially granted Plaintiff's administrative grievance. Plaintiff alleges that despite the "partial grant," Cook's response did not address his concerns. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Aymar, Navamani, Ko and Tetteh, his primary care physicians since August 5, 2007, "have done nothing which would correct the severe excruciating lower back pain" that Plaintiff continues to suffer. (Id. at 6.)

On February 8, 2008, Defendants Cook and Khatri "partially granted" Plaintiff's request for a cane, medications and to be examined by a "back specialist." (Id.) However, Plaintiff claims he did not receive a cane nor was he referred to a back specialist. (Id.) Defendant Navamani "finally ordered a routine orthopedic consultation" and more pain medication on February 26, 2008." (Id. at 7.)

On either March 27, 2008 or April 24, 2008, Plaintiff claims to have been examined by Dr. Lai in the Central Health orthopedic clinic. (Id. at 8; see also Pl.'s Ex. A [Doc. No. 1-1] at 5, 10.) Plaintiff claims Dr. Lai recommended a Magnetic Resonance Imaging ("MRI"). (Id.) On May 8, 2008, Plaintiff claims to have attended a follow-up visit with his primary care provider, who submitted a referral for the MRI. (Id.. at 8, Pl.'s Ex. A at 5.) Plaintiff claims to have been examined again by ...


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.