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.

Arvell James Irving v. California Department of Corrections

July 26, 2011

ARVELL JAMES IRVING,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 18) CLERK TO CLOSE CASE SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Arvell James Irving ("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 May 20, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on May 28, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on August 24, 2010, which was dismissed on June 20, 2011. (ECF Nos. 12 & 17.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 18.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed 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

Plaintiff alleges violations of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: G. Santos, M. Dotson, R. Hall, Kathleen Allison, D. Artis, and D. Foston.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On October 12, 2009, Plaintiff was randomly chosen to take a urine analysis ("UA") test. Two days later, October 14, 2009, Plaintiff's pain management medication prescription expired. On October 16, 2009, the UA test came back positive for morphine. Defendant Santos was contacted on the same day to verify Plaintiff's medical and pharmaceutical records. Santos stated that Plaintiff's records did not indicate issuance of any authorized medication that would account for the morphine positive UA test. Plaintiff was issued a rules violation report.

On November 21, 2009, Plaintiff had his disciplinary hearing before Defendant Dotson. Plaintiff explained to Dotson that he still had not received a copy of his medical records, which would prove that he was taking codeine. Plaintiff called a nurse as a witness and she testified that codeine is a derivative of morphine. Plaintiff then requested more time to receive a copy of his medical files. Dotson denied this request and found Plaintiff guilty of possession of an unauthorized substance and made Plaintiff take drug tests once a week for a year among other punishments.

Plaintiff filed a 602 grievance because he had not received his medical files. He was interviewed by Defendant Hall on January 10, 2010 at the second level of review. Plaintiff still did not receive a copy of his medical files. Plaintiff filed a second 602 grievance after the interview. On January 21, 2010, Plaintiff received a ducat to go to the clinic to review his medical files, but he was never called in for the review.

On February 17, 2010, Defendant Allison affirmed the finding of guilty of unauthorized possession. One day later, Plaintiff filed a third 602 grievance. On March 7, 2010, one of Plaintiff's grievances reached the third level of review. Plaintiff filed a fourth grievance on March 8, 2010. On June 4, 2010, Plaintiff's guilty finding was again upheld, this time by Defendants Artis and Foston.

Plaintiff received his medical files on November 24, 2010.

Plaintiff seeks punitive and monetary damages, and ...


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.