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.

Lee Outlaw v. John/Jane Doe

April 28, 2011

LEE OUTLAW,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN/JANE DOE, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(ECF No. 1)

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Lee Outlaw ("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 filed this action on June 7, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on June 18, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) No other parties have appeared.

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable 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 inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: John/Jane Doe, Warden of North Kern Valley State Prison; John/Jane Does #1-3, medical authorization review committee; and John/Jane Does #4-6, assistant deputy and health care review committee, and doctor.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On February 13, 2010, Plaintiff injured his left foot. He made numerous requests for treatment by sending health care services request forms. Plaintiff was seen by a doctor on March 15, 2010. He scheduled Plaintiff for an MRI. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by the same doctor regarding the results of the MRI. The MRI indicated that Plaintiff had a ruptured Achilles tendon. Plaintiff did not receive treatment after the diagnosis, but was informed that he needed to see a specialist. Due to his injury and not receiving treatment, Plaintiff suffers severe and extreme pain and walks with a limp.

Plaintiff seeks punitive, monetary, and declaratory damages.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...


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.