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.

Francisco Dominguez v. Jack Saint Clair

May 6, 2011

FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JACK SAINT CLAIR, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMENDRESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (DOC. 13)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Francisco Dominguez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint in July 9, 2010. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on January 3, 2011. Doc. 13.

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 Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center ("SCC") in Jamestown, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants Jack Saint Clair, chief medical officer of SCC, and P. Bolles, medical appeals coordinator at SCC.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff overheard that SCC health care services was inputting wrong information in the Medical Appeals Tracking System ("MATS"). On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff requested a copy of his MATS by submitting an Inmate Request for Interview, form GA-22 to Defendant Bolles. After receiving no response, Plaintiff filed a second request on April 6, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff received both GA-22's that were attached to a memorandum and the requested MATS. The MATS were censored, however. Plaintiff then sent a third GA-22 form, requesting an uncensored copy of his MATS. This GA-22 was denied.

On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a 602 appeal form, appealing Defendant Bolles's denial of Plaintiff's request for MATS. On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff's appeal was rejected by Defendant Saint Clair, who informed Plaintiff to submit a GA-22 form instead.

Plaintiff's medical condition consists of severe cervical and lumbar pain, severe pain in both arms and hands preventing proper use of arms and hands, severe headaches, and severe anxiety. Plaintiff alleges a failure to treat his condition. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Saint Clair refused to provide a reasonable course of treatment.

Plaintiff requests as relief monetary damages, an injunction for proper medical treatment and to prevent Defendants from retaliation against Plaintiff ...


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.