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.

William Gonzalez v. John Doe

June 22, 2012

WILLIAM GONZALEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff William Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his complaint. Doc. 1.

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 or malicious," 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).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary Of Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") in Norco, California. Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants John Doe 1, health care manager of PVSP; John Doe 2, Chief Medical Officer of PVSP; John Doe 3, classification and parole representative; John Doe 4, correctional counselor; John Doe 5, primary medical doctor; and Does 6 through 10.

Plaintiff alleges the following. In 2005, CDCR and the Department of Health Services identified PVSP as being in an endemic area containing Coccidiomycosis ("valley fever"). Compl. ¶ 11. In 2005, Plaintiff began to suffer symptoms associated with valley fever, namely full body chills, headaches, nausea, exhaustion, and loss of appetite, fever, upper respiratory infection, and shortness of breath. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff sought medical treatment from medical staff. John Doe 5 examined Plaintiff, determined that he suffered from valley fever, and prescribed medications for Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 13. John Doe 5 notified John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, and John Doe 4 was informed that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with valley fever. Id. ¶ 14. The CDCR protocol was immediate transfer out of the endemic area. Id.

On August 3, 2006, director John Dovey issued a memorandum regarding inmate patients at high risk of valley fever excluded from specific central valley institutions. Id. ¶ 15. It identified inmates susceptible to valley fever, and who was to be transferred out of the area. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff notified Defendant John Doe 5 that his health had deteriorated because of being infected with valley fever. Id. ¶ 17. Defendant John Doe 5 took no actions as required by department policy. Id.

Plaintiff advised Defendant John Doe 4 of his valley fever, of receiving medical treatment from John Doe 5, and that continued incarceration at PVSP would be detrimental to his health. Id. ¶ 18. Defendant John Doe 4 took no action as required by department policy. Id.

Plaintiff notified Defendant John Doe 2 that he was concerned about John Doe 5's failure to comply with departmental policy, and Defendant John Doe 2 failed to act. Id. ¶ 19. Defendant John Doe 3 was required to ensure that inmate patients be transferred within thirty days of diagnosis, and knew that Plaintiff was susceptible and undergoing treatment, but did nothing. Id. ¶ 20. Defendant Doe 1 received notice from Doe 5 that Plaintiff was being treated for valley fever. Id. ¶ 21. Defendant Doe 1 was to review ...


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.