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.

Anthony Gaston v. Larry Delio

December 22, 2010

ANTHONY GASTON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LARRY DELIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng ci4d6 United States Magistrate Judge

COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(ECF No. 3)

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Anthony Gaston ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). He is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in California State Court. Defendant Patel removed the action to this Court on November 9, 2009. (ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

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 Atlantic 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.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff brings this action for violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and also asserts state tort claims. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants in their individual and official capacities: Doctor Larry Dileo and Doctor Ismail Patel.

Plaintiff alleges the following: In August 2006, Defendant Dileo effectively discontinued Plaintiff's pain medication by refusing to renew or refill a prescription. Driven by the intense pain, Plaintiff attempted suicide on September 6, 2006 by cutting his wrists. Defendant Dileo attended to Plaintiff's injuries but did not use sutures to close the wounds.

Defendant Dileo then had Plaintiff moved to administrative segregation. On September 12, 2006, Plaintiff's pain again became intense and he cut his left wrist a second time. He was admitted to the Correctional Treatment Center ("CTC") where he received treatment for his injuries, but again, no sutures. During his time in CTC, Plaintiff suffered repeated blackouts which led to five or six more suicide attempts. Defendant Patel did not treat Plaintiff for his injuries nor did he document Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was on suicide watch for three months.

Plaintiff claims that he has keloid scarring on his forearms caused by not receiving sutures for his self-inflicted suicide attempts injuries.

On July 30, 2007, Plaintiff requested a refill of his pain medication. The prescription was set to expire August 2. Defendant Dileo scheduled an appointment with Plaintiff for August 15. Plaintiff was in pain from August 2 until November 2, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. "Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal Constitution and laws." Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 ...


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.