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.

Richard Manuel Burgos v. K. Domingo

April 18, 2012

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
K. DOMINGO, 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 (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Richard Manuel Burgos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis filed this civil rights action on March 29, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., 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 suffers from permanent nerve damage and severe pain in his right foot, ankle, leg, hip and lower back. (Compl. at 10.) When he was transferred from California State Prison-Solano (CSPS) to Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) on April 6, 2011 (Id. at 5), Defendant Domingo, per the CDC Operations Manual, confiscated a pair of orthopaedic boots and other personal property.*fn1 (Id. at 5-7.) Shortly thereafter the medical staff at PVSP removed him from the Disability Placement Plan he had been on at CSPS. (Id. at 5.) As a result, Plaintiff suffered pain to his right foot, ankle, leg, hip and lower back. (Id. at 7, 10.)

He filed a prison appeal. Defendants Carr and Pineda improperly denied the first level appeal; Defendants Morgan, Trimble and Martinez improperly denied the second level appeal; Defendants Allen and Foston improperly denied the third level appeal. (Id. at 6-9.)

Plaintiff claims the following Defendants deprived him of his property,*fn2 were indifferent to his medical needs and improperly denied his appeal in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments: (1) K. Domingo, Correctional Officer at PVSP, Receiving and Release, (2) B. Carr, Correctional Sergeant at PVSP, Receiving and Release, (3) A. Pineda, Associate Warden at PVSP, Central Operations, (4) J. Morgan, Correctional Officer at PVSP and Appeals Coordinator, (5) Robert H. Trimble, Warden at PVSP, (6) H. Martinez, Health Care Appeals Coordinator at the Office of Appeals, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), (7) K. J. Allen, Correctional Appeals Examiner at CDCR, (8) D. Foston, Chief Office of Appeals at CDCR. (Id. at 3-4.)

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of a transfer back to CSPS, a protective order regarding retaliation, return of his orthopaedic boots, general, special and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. (Id. at 13.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements Generally

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. ...


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.