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.

Gil v. Yates

October 9, 2010

FRANCISCO GIL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

(DOC. 31)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Findings And Recommendation

I. Background

Plaintiff Francisco Gil ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner formerly in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on March 24, 2009. On September 18, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. On November 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. On March 2, 2010, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims for relief for certain claims, and dismissed other claims without prejudice as unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. Plaintiff was provided the opportunity to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims. On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint, as well as a request for preliminary injunctive relief.

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 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary of Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: chief medical officer F. Igbinosa, doctors Salazar, Kim, Ortiz, Neubarth, Kushner,Seifert, Diep, Birring, Alvarez, and Amadi, lieutenants Henderson and Herrera, RN's Manasred, Griffith, Medina, Ryan, and Davis, NP Coleman, LVN's Malloy, Johnson, and Stringer, correctional officer Tucker, and warden James A. Yates. Plaintiff also names Defendant Vilaysane in the body of his complaint.

A. Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 20(a)

Plaintiff's allegations span from his incarceration at PVSP beginning in May 7, 2002 through June 16, 2009. The Court finds that Plaintiff alleges distinct claims against multiple unrelated defendants. All of Plaintiff's claims concern the treatment for his medical condition.

Plaintiff's claims include: 1) Defendant Salazar denying Plaintiff his back brace in May 7, 2002; 2) Defendant Kim denying Plaintiff pain management of any sort on August 14, 2002; 3) Defendant Ortiz's failure to provide any medical treatment on April 23, 2003; 4) Defendant Neubarth's failure to provide any medical treatment on July 25, 2003; 5) Defendant Kushner failing to provide adequate medical care for Plaintiff's pain in 2005; 6) Defendants Henderson and Herrera failing to provide medical care after Plaintiff was injured during a prison riot in January 5, 2006; Plaintiff subsequently filing a CDC 602 form to obtain medical treatment with Defendant Manasred (who responded to the 602 grievance) doing nothing; and Plaintiff being seen by Defendant Seifert on March 29, 2006, and receiving no treatment despite Defendant Seifert's knowledge of the extent of Plaintiff's injury; 7) Defendant Coleman declaring that Plaintiff did not suffer from any injury and denying him treatment from July 3, 2007 until April 2009; 8) Defendants Griffith, Medina, and Diep continually canceling or falsifying medical appointments from September 26, 2007 through October 2007; 9) Defendants Johnson, Ryan, Tucker, Davis, and Stringer harassing Plaintiff regarding his medical appliance from December 27, 2007 to April 2009; 10) Defendants Vilaysane and Birring refusing to provide treatment for Plaintiff on April 7, 2008 and June 11, 2008 despite knowledge of the x-rays and MRIs which indicated Plaintiff's medical issues; 11) Defendants Alvarez and F. Igbinosa informing Plaintiff on January 19, 2009 and June 16, 2009, respectively, that due to the extent of his injuries there was nothing to be done; 12) Defendant Amadi informing Plaintiff on February 25, 2009, that Plaintiff's injury was extensive and surgery would not be provided because of the cost.

These claims are distinct and unrelated. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), persons may be joined as defendants in one action if the right asserted against them arises from the same transaction or occurrence, and any questions of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. The Court finds that these claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and do not involve the same questions of fact. Though the claims all involve Plaintiff's medical treatment while at PVSP, the alleged actions occurred separately from each other, at different times. Nothing else links these claims by transaction or occurrence. See also ...


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.