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.

Michael Lynn Waters v. Zamora

January 12, 2011

MICHAEL LYNN WATERS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ZAMORA,
DEFENDANT.



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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED (DOC. 1) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Lynn Waters ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner 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. On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Doc. 1. On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff's case was transferred to this Court. Doc. 6. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion as both a motion for preliminary injunction and a complaint.

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 Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names LCSW (licensed clinical social worker) Zamora as Defendant.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff spoke with doctor Whiting as to Plaintiff receiving single cell status until doctor Whiting reviewed Plaintiff's mental health file. Plaintiff was then sent to IDTT (Interdisciplinary Treatment Team). Defendant Zamora was the head member of IDTT. Defendant Zamora stated that doctor Whiting had asked for Plaintiff to be placed on single cell status for one week until Plaintiff's mental health file was reviewed. Defendant Zamora stated that inmates who had been previously in ACH (Acute Care Hospital) would not be single celled. Defendant Zamora stated that he would rather have Plaintiff kill another inmate than to single cell him.*fn1

Plaintiff requests monetary damages, and to bar Defendant Zamora from being present during IDTT interviews. ///

III. Analysis

A. Eighth Amendment - Medical Care

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. "The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quotation and citation omitted). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) "the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,'" and (2) "the prison official 'acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.'" Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, "sufficiently serious . . . ." ...


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.