Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel H. Govind v. Veal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 17, 2011

DANIEL H. GOVIND,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VEAL, ET AL DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge

ORDER

On February 20, 2009 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint [24]. In it, he purports to state the following causes of action: (1) denial of adequate medical care, (2) Inadequate living conditions, (3) denial of his right to practice his religion or interference with his practice of his religion, (4) racial and religious discrimination, (5) denial of procedural due process in an administrative hearing following a false write-up, (6) denial of access to the courts, and (7) deprivation and destruction of personal property.al property.

The inartfully drafted pleading is not divided into causes of action nor the identification of which defendant(s) are being called on to answer each specific cause of action. Consequently no small amount of effort is required to determine whether, in this case, causes of action have been stated against Defendant Hunsaker. As far as the court is able to determine Hunsaker's name is not even mentioned except in relation to his hospital/clinic duties. Hunsaker is a Medical Technical Assistant at High Desert State Prison.

As for the allegations against Hunsaker, they are as follows: "M.T.A. Mr. Handsuker (sic) will not give the insulin in time nor he would give the prescribed refill on time. He will make you wait one day." "He held my asthma pump for 1 day. He told me I am not going to give you your asthma pump because you jumped the line." No allegations of any kind are made against Hunsaker other than those cited above, therefore, as to counts other than the denial of medical care, they are dismissed as to Hunsaker.

However, as to the above cited allegations, it appears that a cognizable claim has been asserted for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs under the EighthAmendment. That claim against Defendant Hunsaker will remain, but all other claims against this defendant are DISMISSED.

20110617

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.