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.

Claudell Earl Martin v. Loadholt

February 15, 2012

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOADHOLT,
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 February 1, 2010, Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin, 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 is incarcerated at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDC"), Corcoran State Prison, ("CSP"). (Compl. p. 5-6, ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff complains that Defendant Loadholt, a physician employed by CDC on staff at CSP, was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, unprofessional, and retaliated against him for a related prison grievance, in violation of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff names Defendant Loadholt in her official and individual capacities. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff had heart surgery in 2004 and was placed on a "prescribed medical plan" by an outside medical specialist. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff continued to have chest pain, and on May 5, 2008 he asked Defendant why his cholesterol medication was changed without notice and contrary to his "prescribed medical plan", (Id. at 6-7). Defendant disagreed with Plaintiff and became "irrate". (Id.)

The next day Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendant. (Id.)

Defendant then became "vexed [at Plaintiff, stating] ... oh! but we don't do enough for you?" (Id.) and retaliated by requiring Plaintiff to pick-up his cholesterol medication at the "pill line window" rather than allowing Plaintiff to keep it on his person. (Id. at 8.) She told Plaintiff "we can do as we want and I want you to pick your cholesterol medication up here at the pill window." (Id.)

Plaintiff subsequently grieved this retaliatory requirement. (Id.)

His appeal was granted in October of 2008 and he was allowed to keep his cholesterol medication on his person. (Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant violated his rights, to enjoin Defendant "and other agents of CRC at CSP" from retaliating against him or delaying, denying, or interfering with his medication, $20,000 in compensatory damages, and $10,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 14-15.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements Generally

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two ...


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.