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.

Steven Charkhian v. Ken Clark

March 19, 2011

STEVEN CHARKHIAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEN CLARK, WARDEN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF No. 9)

ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Steven Charkhian ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action July 7, 2009. He consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on August 6, 2009. He has paid the filing fee; he is not appearing in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff's original Complaint was dismissed on November 29, 2010 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 2, 2011. (ECF No. 9.) The Amended Complaint is before the Court for screening.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails 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

In this action Plaintiff alleges a violation of his right to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. The events at issue occurred between August 2006 and April 2008 when Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff has named the following individuals as Defendants: Ken Clark, Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility/State Prison ("CSATF"); T. Bzoskie, Chief Medical Officer at CSATF; A. Enenmoh, Chief Medical Officer at CSATF; Zong, Medical Doctor at CSATF; Salmi, Medical Doctor at CSATF; and

O. Beregovskaya, Medical Doctor ...


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.