Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Leinweber v. Day

March 13, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge


(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Mikhiel J. Leinweber ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 31, 2009. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 31, 2009.

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).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

I. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"), where the events giving rise to this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants Sergeant A. Day of ad-seg B-1 and psychologist Cao of ad-seg.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On February 23, 2009, Plaintiff was placed in ad seg due to safety concerns. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 6, p. 8 of 29.) Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Day that he was not receiving his prescribed psychiatric medication. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendant Day responded that it was not his problem and told Plaintiff to file a medical request form. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Pursuant to a captain's orders, Plaintiff was supposed to be only housed with like concern inmates, meaning safety concern inmates. (Id. at ¶ 10.) However, on February 24, 2009, Defendant Day arrived at Plaintiff's cell and told him that he was moving an inmate in without like concerns. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff pointed out to Defendant Day that this would violate the captain's orders. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff was also hallucinating at the time because of the lack of psychiatric medications for three days. (Id.)

Defendant Day moved Plaintiff to a behavioral management stripped cell for expressing his mental health needs. (Id. at ¶ 13.) The stripped cell had no mattress, laundry, or hygiene items. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff became suicidal, and asked floor staff to call the psychiatric staff for consultation. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Defendant Day returned with Defendant Cao to Plaintiff's cell. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff informed Defendant Cao that he had found a plethora of unknown pills in the stripped cell and he was going to kill himself if he was not placed on suicide watch to receive psychiatric treatment. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Defendants Day and Cao conferred outside the presence of Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Defendant Day then told Plaintiff that he would not be put on suicide watch, and that he would be returned to his stripped cell without his prescribed medication. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Defendant Day then returned Plaintiff to his cell and told him to just kill himself and stop being a punk. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff ingested approximately 30 of the unknown pills in an attempt to take his own life. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Floor staff correctional officer observed this act, and called the watch office to have Plaintiff transferred to an outside hospital. (Id. at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff remained hospitalized at Delano Regional Medical Center for 3 days. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Plaintiff returned to KVSP on February 29, 2009. (Id. at ¶ 26.) On or around March 3, 2009, Defendant Day stated that because Plaintiff had played the psych game, Plaintiff was again being placed in a stripped cell. (Id. at ¶ 28.) After several days, Plaintiff asked a fellow inmate to provide him with a 602 inmate appeal. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Plaintiff filed the 602 inmate appeal by placing it in a sealed legal mail envelope and mailing it to the prison warden. (Id. at ¶ 30.)

The next day, Plaintiff was called out of his cell by Defendant Day. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Defendant Day had possession of the staff complaint filed by Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Defendant Day asked Plaintiff if he thought his officers would allow Plaintiff to file a staff complaint against him. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Defendant Day then tore up the complaint. (Id. at ¶ 34.) Later that day, Defendant Day transferred Plaintiff to B-3 housing unit, where Plaintiff refiled the staff complaint. (Id. at ¶ 35.)

Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment and First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

II. Analysis

A. Deliberate Indifference - Basic ...

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.