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.

Jesus Ramos v. Edgar

August 3, 2011

JESUS RAMOS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDGAR, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Jesus Ramos ("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 February 7, 2011 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 10, 2011. (ECF Nos. 1 & 9.) No other parties have appeared.

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before this Court for screening. For the reasons stated 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 brings this action for violations of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names Correctional Officer Edgar and Sohail Afra, M.D. as Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: While conducting a random search in a dormitory, Defendant Edgar tilted a locker to look underneath it. The locker fell over and hit Plaintiff in the lower spine causing Plaintiff great pain. Defendant Edgar failed to contact the medical department.

On February 10, 2009, Plaintiff was unable to lift himself out of bed, so he was allowed to go to the medical department. Defendant Afra examined Plaintiff, ordered an r-ray, and prescribed pain medication. However, Defendant Afra failed to follow-up on Plaintiff's x-rays. Plaintiff was then transferred to another facility because Defendant Afra failed to place a medical hold on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks 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.