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.

Joe Owen Ellis, Jr v. Ellen Greenman

June 16, 2011

JOE OWEN ELLIS, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELLEN GREENMAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Joe Owen Ellis ("Plaintiff") is a former 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 October 4, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on October 14, 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 any claims 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 alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Ellen Greenman, MD; S. Abdou, MD; P. Safi, PA; Felix Igbinosa, CMD; and A. Manasrah, NP. Greenman, Abdou, Safi, and Igbinosa were all employed at Avenal State Prison at the time of the incidents. Manasrah was employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison at the time of the incidents.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff's left knee was examined by Defendant Abdou. Abdou noted that there was a tear and prescribed physical therapy. Eventually Plaintiff's knee became more painful and he found it difficult to stand or walk for long periods of time. Plaintiff placed several sick calls and was seen by an RN. On June 1, 2009, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Safi who told Plaintiff that he was not there to examine his knee, but only to discuss a 602 appeal. On August 11, 2009, Plaintiff was told by the physical therapist that he did not know what was wrong with his knee and that Plaintiff should go back to the doctor.

In November 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff was seen by a doctor about his knee. The doctor ordered x-rays. In April 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Manasrah who ordered blood work and physical therapy, but would not order an MRI even after Plaintiff explained that physical therapy had not worked in the past. Eventually, surgery was ordered.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and to have all of his medical needs regarding his left knee taken care of.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. "Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal ...


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.