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.

Andre Del Lee Gaspelin v. James A. Yates

April 25, 2012

ANDRE DEL LEE GASPELIN,
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. 9)

CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 30, 2009, Plaintiff Andre Del Lee Gaspelin, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil claim in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno. (ECF No. 2, Ex. A.) Defendants removed the matter to this Court on the grounds that the claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 2.) The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 5, 11.)

Before removal, Plaintiff submitted his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 2, Ex. E); seeFed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 2, Ex. E) was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) 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

Plaintiff identifies Warden James A. Yates, Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) and Dr. F. Igbinoza as Defendants in this action and alleges the following:

"James A. Yates knowingly accepted me into Pleasant Valley State Prison and exposed me to Valley Fever. Dr. F. Igbinoza would not get me transferred from the epidemic area leaving me exposed to Valley Fever." (Compl. at 3.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section ...


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.