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 Cruz v. James Tilton

April 23, 2012

RICHARD CRUZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff Richard Cruz, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) 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

The Complaint identifies the following individuals as Defendants in this action: (1) James Tilton, Secretary, California Department of Corrections; (2) Scott Kernan, Warden, New Folsom (Folsom); (3) James Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP);

(4) Felix Igbinosa, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, PVSP; and (5) Gordon Thurston, M.D. Plaintiff alleges the following: On March 10, 2005, Defendant Kernan transferred Plaintiff from Folsom to PVSP.

The decision to transfer Plaintiff was unilateral, no one from the classification committee was consulted and Plaintiff had not been screened in advance for susceptibility to Valley Fever. (Compl. at 2, 3.) Plaintiff had not previously lived in an area where Valley Fever was prevalent. (Id. at 5, 6.)

Defendants Tilton, Yates, and Igbinosa had all been notified by the Centers for Disease Control, prior to Plaintiff's arrival at PVSP, that inmates who had not previously been exposed to Valley Fever were the most susceptible to infection. (Id. at 3.) According to a Valley Fever specialist, as quoted in a Hanford Sentinel article, Valley Fever "would have the greatest impact among those with no built-up immunity." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was not screened for susceptibility to Valley Fever upon his arrival to PVSP. (Id. at 3.)

On September 18, 2005, Plaintiff was admitted to a local hospital. Defendant Thurston discharged Plaintiff two days later after guessing that Plaintiff was "faking" his symptoms. In his discharge summary, Thurston stated that Plaintiff had been admitted "'because of headaches, weakness, nausea, and vomiting. A CAT scan of the brain was found to be normal.'" (Id. at 4.)

On September 22, 2005, Plaintiff was admitted to a different local hospital for a "'protracted headache with fever.'" (Id.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with ...


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.