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.

Francisco Dominguez v. Jack Saint Clair

January 27, 2012

FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JACK SAINT CLAIR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DOC. 27) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS (DOC. 27)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Francisco Dominguez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint in July 9, 2010. He filed an amended complaint on January 3, 2011. Doc. 13. On May 9, 2011, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. Doc. 15. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on October 13, 2011. Doc. 27.

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 to relief 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 Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Sierra Conservation Center ("SCC") in Jamestown, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants Jack Saint Clair, chief medical officer of SCC, and Mary Pixle Bolles, health care appeals coordinator at SCC.

Plaintiff alleges the following: On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff overheard that SCC health care services was inputting inaccurate information in the Medical Appeals Tracking System ("MATS"). On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff requested a copy of his MATS by submitting an Inmate Request for Interview, form GA-22 to Defendant Bolles. After receiving no response, Plaintiff filed a second request on April 6, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff received both GA-22s that were attached to a memorandum and the requested MATS. The MATS were censored, however. Plaintiff then sent a third GA-22 form, requesting an uncensored copy of his MATS. This GA-22 was denied.

On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a 602 appeal form, appealing Defendant Bolles' denial of Plaintiff's request for MATS. On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff's appeal was rejected by Defendant Saint Clair, who informed Plaintiff to submit a GA-22 form instead.

Plaintiff contends that his mental and physical health condition is deteriorating because of the refusal to disclose the MATS information. Plaintiff asserts that after he filed a grievance against Defendants Saint Clair and Bolles, Defendant Saint Clair ordered staff to retaliate against him.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal form to examine a file. An unidentified correctional officer brought his C-File, allowed other custody staff to examine the file and threatened Plaintiff to withdraw his 602 or all information in the C-File would be distributed throughout the Tuolumne Facility.

On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed another 602 based on correctional officer confiscating all of ...


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.