Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Edward Jones v. Klark

September 22, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge


(DOC. 9)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Edward Jones ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on August 31, 2010. Doc. 1. On April 25, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Doc. 8. On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. Doc. 9.

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 Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary Of Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: C. Clark, chief medical officer Enenmoh, CC II A. Rivera, case workers C. Akins and S. Martins, psychologist Ashtarie, mental health staffer Talisman, mailroom workers L. Draper and M. Madden, and R&R staff Sumpter and Black. Plaintiff also names sergeant Pegleeosi and physician assistant T. Bayers.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff was illegally transferred to dorm living instead of cell status when he arrived at CSATF from San Quentin Prison.*fn1 Am. Compl. 3. Plaintiff was denied access to some leg braces and orthopedic boots. Id. Plaintiff complains that he was also denied previously issued personal property. Id. Plaintiff was offered the opportunity to mail these items, but the items were instead disposed because of Plaintiff's lack of funds, rather than held pending appeal. Id.

Plaintiff was told by custody staff that his property issues were a medical matter, and was then told by medical staff that his property issues were a custody matter. Id. at 3-A. Defendants Ashtarie and Talisman told Plaintiff that he should lie about his medical condition, to take psychotropic medications and participate in a group therapy session. Id. Plaintiff refused. Id. Plaintiff lost thirty pounds since July of 2010, suffering from physical and mental stress, including bleeding while urinating or defecating, and kidney stones. Id.

Several weeks afterwards, Plaintiff was in contact with his case worker and the supervisor, and mailed petitions via U.S. mail. Id. Plaintiff's outgoing mail was refused, as the prison mailroom staff, Defendants Draper and Madden, would not recognize indigent envelopes from other prisons. Id. Plaintiff had apparently used envelopes from San Quentin State Prison. Id. Plaintiff was not allowed to mail out this alleged legal confidential mail using his inmate trust account because he did not have funds. Id.

Plaintiff appeared at his Institutional Classification Committee. Id. Defendants Akins, Martins, and Rivera were present. Id. Prison officials failed to check Plaintiff's medical chronos. Id. These chronos are apparently attached as exhibits to his amended complaint, and include information regarding how being double-celled instead of dorm-housed is most beneficial, and how Plaintiff requires a knee brace. Am. Compl., Exs A-E. Plaintiff contends that he should have been sent back to San Quentin Prison. Id. at 3-A.

Plaintiff's leg braces and shoes were previously approved at other prisons. Id. at 3-B. In addition to being denied his medical equipment, Plaintiff was denied his religious artifacts and talismans by Defendant Sumpter. Id.

When his IST hearing was over, Plaintiff suffered bleeding during a bowel movement. Id. at 3-C. Plaintiff was assisted back to his bunk by other inmates, and he was unable to leave his cell for several days. Id. Plaintiff was finally seen by a physician assistant, who noted that Plaintiff was not eligible to participate in treatment for his PTSD (posttraumatic ...

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.