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.

Larry D. Jones v. Jayanta Choudhury

July 26, 2011

LARRY D. JONES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAYANTA CHOUDHURY, M.D., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF No. 8)

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Larry D. Jones ("Plaintiff"), an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 8, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on November 22, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 21, 2011. (ECF No. 8.)

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now before this Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims.

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: Jayanta Choudhury, M.D.; David I. Rohrdonz, M.D.; N. Bair, R.N.; Jajodia, M.D.; Albena V. Dimitrova, M.D.; Kristie Perkins, Lab.; Nicholas Hamilton, Lab.; Maggie, PCA; and Chantal, R.N.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On October 27, 2008, Defendant Jojodia assisted by Defendants Rohdanz and Bair performed surgery on Plaintiff. During the surgery, a hole was accidentally cut in Plaintiff's stomach. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital the same day by Defendant Rohdanz. On October 28 and 29, 2008, Plaintiff had a GI bleed and didn't know it. On October 30, 2008, Defendant Dimitrova ordered that Plaintiff have a blood transfusion which was performed by Defendant Hamilton Nicholas. A lab test was requested by Defendant Perkins. Plaintiff did not give his consent to this. On October 31, 2008, another blood transfusion was ordered by Defendant Choudhury and performed by Defendants Chantal and Maggie without Plaintiff's consent. Defendant Choudhury then performed an endoscopy and applied to metal clips to stop the bleeding in Plaintiff's stomach.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

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.