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.

Cardwell v. Kettelhake

September 10, 2010

CHRISTOPHER W. CARDWELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. KETTELHAKE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James L. Robart United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Christopher W. Cardwell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the court on Mr. Cardwell's motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. # 44) and motion to dismiss Defendant R. Colletti (Dkt. # 62). Defendants have not responded to either motion. (See Order Directing Service (Dkt. # 12) ¶ 7.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court GRANTS Mr. Cardwell's motion to amend (Dkt. # 44) and motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 62).

I.ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Amend

Mr. Cardwell states that, through discovery (1) he has determined that Nurse T. Reshke, a registered nurse at High Desert State Prison, should be added as a defendant in this case; and (2) he has determined that different facts apply to his claims against Defendant Nurse J. Camacho. (Dkt. # 44 at 1-2).

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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell, 550 U.S. at 555, in turn quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 47). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

Here, Mr. Cardwell seeks to make two substantive amendments to his complaint. First, Mr. Cardwell alleges that Nurse Reshke, who was responsible for initial screening of new arrivals at High Desert State Prison, failed to document certain medications and treatments required for his lower back pain; and that this omission constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Sec. Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 45) at 2-3.) The court finds that these allegations state a cognizable claim for relief against Nurse Reshke. Accordingly, the court will order service of process on Nurse Reshke.

Second, Mr. Cardwell seeks to amend his factual allegations against Nurse Camacho. Mr. Cardwell now alleges that Nurse Camacho was responsible for completing the "Confidential Medical/Mental Health Information Transfer-Sending Institution" form, which describes an inmate's need for medical treatment.*fn1 (Id. at 3-4.) Mr. Cardwell alleges that Nurse Camacho's failure to "competently document" his medical treatment caused him a substantial risk of serious harm and constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) The court finds that these allegations state a cognizable claim for relief against Nurse Camacho. For these reasons, the court GRANTS Mr. Cardwell's motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. # 44).

B. Motion to Dismiss

In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Cardwell states that Dr. Colletti was not a proper defendant and requests that the court dismiss his claims against Dr. Colletti. (Dkt. # 62.) Dr. Colletti has filed no counterclaims against Mr. Cardwell, nor has he filed cross-claims against his co-defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Mr. Cardwell's motion to dismiss his claims against Dr. Colletti (Dkt. # 62) without prejudice.

II. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ...


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.