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

December 13, 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.) No other parties have appeared in this action.

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 23, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint for failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2011, and that First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

Plaintiff again fails to state a claim. His action shall be dismissed.


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 1949-5.


Plaintiff's Amended Complaint consists of several sections that seem to the Court to be unrelated to one another. It the first section Plaintiff inserts the description of defendants and the "statement of claim" found in his original Complaint, then a new two page "statement of the claim", then the Court's entire summary of his original Complaint from its first Screening Order, and a section labeled "Claim 1" and "Claim 2" (which appear to be, combined, a claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment). Plaintiff then includes an entirely separate document entitled "Memorandum of Points and Authorities" that contains another "statement of the claim", a set of medical definitions, an "argument", a summary, a request for damages, a claim for relief, and a prayer for relief. These and others factors leave the Amended Complaint less than entirely comprehensible. The Court will summarize it as best it can:

A. Plaintiff's Status; Defendants

Plaintiff has been in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") at all times relevant to this action. (Am. Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison in Solano, California, but was in Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") at all times relevant to this action. (Id.)

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 At all times relevant, Defendants were employed as follows: Defendant Klarich was the Chief Medical Officer ("CMO") at PVSP. (Am. Compl. at 4.) 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 5.) Defendant Doe was also responsible for Plaintiff's medical care. (Id.) Defendants Perkinson and Wong were employed as surgeons at PVSP. (Id. at 5-6.) Defendant Neubarth was employed as a physician at PVSP. (Id. at 6.) Defendant Stephanie Doe was employed as a utilization management nurse at PVSP. (Id. at 6.) Defendant Leach was employed as a Licensed Vocational Nurse ("LVN") at PVSP. (Id. at 7.) 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.)

B. Factual Background and Summary of Factual Background from the Original Screening Order

Plaintiff repeats the same chronological treatment history found in his original Complaint. (Am. Compl. at 8-12.) He adds a single page "Statement of the Claim" and the Court's original summary of his initial factual allegations. (Id. at 13-17.)

From the foregoing, it appears Plaintiff received the following treatment for his left-eye:

Plaintiff sought treatment for glaucoma, diagnosed in its early stages, in order to prevent blindness in his left-eye. (Am. Compl. at 8.) Plaintiff also sought proper follow-up care after left-eye cataract surgery by Defendant Perksinson September 27, 2001. (Id.) Since approximately July 2002, Plaintiff has sought follow-up treatment. (Id.)

On April 2, 2002, Plaintiff experienced eye irritation and was referred to an opthamologist. (Am. 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 Plaintiff's 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.