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.

Carlos Alvarez v. James A. Yates

April 23, 2012

CARLOS ALVAREZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (ECF No. 18) CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 10, 2009, Plaintiff Carlos Alvarez, 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 consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)

Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on July 29, 2011 and September 28, 2011, respectively, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) 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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Correctional Officers John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and Jackson violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

On September 30, 2005, the gym where Plaintiff was housed at Chino State Prison (Chino) was flooded with water, urine, and feces. Instead of reassigning Plaintiff to a housing unit not flooded, John Doe #1 instructed Plaintiff to cross the flooded area by stepping on mattresses. As he was walking across the mattresses, Plaintiff slipped, fell, and injured his knee, shoulder, arm, and back. (Compl. at 3.) The following day Plaintiff told Doe #2 that he was injured and needed medical attention. Doe #2 left to retrieve an interpreter but did not return. (Id. at 3, 4.) On October 2, 2011, Plaintiff asked Defendant Jackson if he was going to be examined by a medical staff member. Instead of escorting Plaintiff to the infirmary immediately, Defendant Jackson said that the medical staff would call Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff was transferred to Corcoran State Prison (Corcoran) on October 19, 2005, without having received treatment at Chino for his injuries. Plaintiff was eventually seen four months later at Corcoran during a routine examination. The Defendants' deliberate ...


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.