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.

Robert L. Scales v. Bakersfield Mearcy Hospital

March 18, 2011

ROBERT L. SCALES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BAKERSFIELD MEARCY HOSPITAL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert L. Scales ("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. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Central District of California on December 17, 2009. The action was transferred to the Eastern District of California on July 13, 2010.

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 complains of actions which occurred at Bakersfield Mercy*fn1 Hospital. Plaintiff names as Defendants Mercy Hospital Bakersfield and Staff, and Doe 1, superintendent of nursing.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Mercy Hospital is contracted with the state to provide medical care. On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to Mercy Hospital for respiratory problems, and entered a coma for over three weeks. During that time, nurses or CNA's were supposed to turn Plaintiff every two hours to prevent bed sores.

Plaintiff developed a stage 4 bedsore because of their neglect, along with nerve damage. One month later, a wound nurse removed Plaintiff's dead skin surrounding the bed sore. This was done in unsanitary conditions, and resulted in a staph infection. Plaintiff later became infected with staph infection after a procedure was done a few weeks later. After several weeks of trying to bring Plaintiff's condition under control, the defendants eventually transferred Plaintiff to a hospital in San Diego. There, doctors operated on Plaintiff's bed sore.

Plaintiff seeks as relief monetary damages, and for Defendants to pay for all current and future medical expenses as a result of Plaintiff's injuries.

III. Analysis

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.