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.

Rodnei Frazier v. Lopez

January 16, 2012

RODNEI FRAZIER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOPEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 3, 2010, Plaintiff Rodnei Frazier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious," or 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).

Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393--94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff complains that, while he was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"), Defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by denying him adequate medical care, denying his prison grievances, and retaliating for his prison grievances and lawsuits against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") (Compl., p. 1-4, 8 ECF No. 1.) His health deteriorated as a result. (Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff names the following Defendants in their official and individual capacities:

(1) Lopez, a CMO*fn1 at KVSP, (2) Smith, a C& PR*fn2 at KVSP, and (3) Akano, a medical doctor employed at KVSP. (Id.) Plaintiff does not demand any relief.

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff suffers from sickle cell anemia and has bi-lateral hip replacements. Plaintiff was transferred from the correctional facility in Vacaville to KVSP in March 2007. Plaintiff complains that KVSP has not provided the level of treatment and therapy he received at Vacaville. He has not received an egg-crate mattress, resource drinks for his weight, or a soft shoe chronology. (Id. at 5.) Nor has he been seen by a hematologist. (Id.) His prison appeals seeking such care have not been entirely successful. (Id.) His therapy has been substandard (Id. at 9.) He has developed severe stiffness in his hip joints (Id. at 6) and on occasion has required hospital care. (Id. at 10.) Defendants knew that Plaintiff could not receive adequate medical treatment at KVSP and should have transferred him to a more appropriate facility. (Id. at 6-8.)

Defendant Akano inadequately treated Plaintiff, did not transfer him to an appropriate facility even though told to do so by the CDCR, and denied his related prison appeal. (Id. at 9.)

Defendant Lopez did not transfer Plaintiff to an appropriate facility (Id. at 7), denied his appeal (Id. at 10), and advised him that he was "getting proper treatment and [would be staying at KVSP]". (Id. at 10.)

Defendant Smith denied Plaintiff's appeal, advising him that transfer denial "was all [Plaintiff's] fault for filing suits against CDCR, so deal with it". (Id. at 7-8.)

Plaintiff also claims retaliation relating to his original transfer to KVSP, (Id. at 12), and to a 12-month SHU punishment where he was "framed for ...


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.