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.

Price v. Clark

November 15, 2010

CLYDE PRICE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEN CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 14)

Plaintiff Clyde Price ("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 is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and is incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff is suing under Section 1983 for the violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff names Ken Clark (warden), Garza (correctional sergeant), Cable (correctional officer), Gonzalez (correctional officer), John and Jane Doe maintenance staff, and John and Jane Doe medical staff as defendants ("Defendants"). Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #7.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state any claims upon which relief can be granted under Section 1983. Since Plaintiff has previously been informed of the deficiencies in his claims, the Court finds that further leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

I. 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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on August 10, 2009. (Doc. #1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint on December 31, 2009. (Doc. #9.) The Court found that Plaintiff's original complaint failed to state any cognizable claims for relief. The Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his claims and granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on February 26, 2010. (Doc. #14.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while being transported to a medical appointment outside the prison. Plaintiff was transported to his appointment on October 19, 2007, by Defendants Cable and Gonzalez. Plaintiff contends that he climbed into the transportation van using a milk crate as a step stool because the van's step ladder was missing. Plaintiff allegedly told Cable and Gonzalez that the plastic milk crate would not be strong enough to support Plaintiff's weight. Cable and Gonzalez ignored Plaintiff's complaints and Plaintiff used the milk crate to get into the van.

However, when Plaintiff arrived at his appointment and used the milk crate a second time to exit the van, the crate slipped and Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated because Plaintiff was shackled and could not protect himself from the impact of the fall. Plaintiff claims that he suffered excruciating pain on the right side of his head, neck and lower back and suffered abrasions on his arms and legs. Plaintiff contends that using the plastic milk crate as a step stool violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff was taken to the medical center without any assistance while in restraints. The staff at the medical center took x-rays of Plaintiff's back. Plaintiff complains that he did not receive an MRI. Although Plaintiff received a shot after complaining about the pain, he contends he was not given a neck collar, back brace, or medication. Plaintiff further contends that he did not receive any further medical appointments for the injuries. Plaintiff argues that ...


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.