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

May 23, 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 ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 8) CLERK TO CLOSE FILE DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SECOND SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Richard Manuel Burgos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8), which 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's primary care physician had prescribed "orthotic shoes" for nerve damage in his back, hip, leg and foot. Plaintiff here reiterates his earlier claim that upon transfer from California State Prison-Solano to Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), Defendant Receiving and Release Officers at PVSP confiscated one of his two pair of orthotic shoes in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and violating his Eighth Amendment rights. (First Am. Compl. at 4-5.)

Plaintiff's prison appeal was denied at the Third Level. (Id. at 5-6.)

Plaintiff names as Defendants PVSP Receiving and Release Officers K. Domingo and B. Carr. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff has suffered pain, swelling, blurred vision, migraines, seizures, insomnia and sleep deprivation. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary ...


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.