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.

Carter Lee Allen v. J.D. Klarich

October 30, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge



Plaintiff Carter Lee Allen ("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 has consented to the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 4.)

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 23, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in this action. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.


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, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (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). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.


Plaintiff is a prisoner currently housed at California State Prison in Solano, California. (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff claims the following Defendants denied him adequate medical care: (1) J.D. Klarich, M.D.; (2) Doe, Associate Warden; (3) R. Perkinson, M.D.; (4) Dr. Wong, M.D.; (5) J. Nuebarth, M.D.; (6) R. Cerona, R.N.; (7) Stephanie Doe, U.M.N; (8) Jane Leach, LVN; (9) Ketsana Vilagsana, M.D.; and (10) J. Parks, U.M.N.*fn1 Plaintiff seeks general, special, and punitive damages. Plaintiff also seeks attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Plaintiff has been in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") at all times relevant to this action. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") from September 27, 2001 to December 2008. (Id.) Plaintiff relied on medical care providers at CDCR at all times during his incarceration.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were employed as follows: Defendant Klarich was the Chief Medical Officer ("CMO") at PVSP. (Id.) As CMO, Defendant Klarich was responsible for Plaintiff's medical care, and his general responsibilities included the supervision, direction, and proper training of medical staff at PVSP. (Id.) Defendant Doe was employed as the Medical Health Care Services Associate Warden of PVSP. (Id. at 4.) Defendant Doe was also responsible for Plaintiff's medical care. (Id.) Defendants Perkinson and Wong were employed as surgeons at PVSP. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant Neubarth was employed as a physician at PVSP. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Stephanie Doe was employed as a utilization management nurse at PVSP. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Leach was employed as a Licensed Vocational Nurse at PVSP. (Id. at 6.) Defendant Vilagsana was a medical doctor responsible for the medical care of Plaintiff at PVSP. (Id.) Plaintiff Parks was employed by CDCR at PVSP. (Id.)

From September 27, 2001 to December 2008, Defendants have been aware that PVSP's medical staff's scheduling and cancellation of Plaintiff's medical appointments, transfers, and unreasonable delay in treatment resulted in inadequate care of Plaintiff's medical needs and damage to Plaintiff's health. (Compl. at 8-9.) Plaintiff sought treatment for glaucoma, diagnosed in its early stages, in order to prevent blindness in his left-eye. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff also sought proper follow-up care after having surgery on his left-eye. (Id.)

The chronological history of the treatment Plaintiff received for his left-eye is as follows:

Defendant Perksinson performed cataract surgery on Plaintiff's left-eye on September 27, 2001. Since approximately July 2002, Plaintiff has sought follow-up medical care. (Compl. at 8.)

On April 2, 2002, Plaintiff experienced eye irritation and was referred to an opthamologist. (Compl. at 8.) On July 19, 2002, he visited Defendant Wong at the Golden State Eye Center. (Id.) Defendant Wong discovered visual problems and glaucoma in his left-eye and on December 2, 2002, performed laser surgery. (Id.) Defendant Wong prescribed medication. (Id.) Plaintiff ...

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.