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.

Ryan Stevens v. State A Cognizable Claim James Yates

June 27, 2012

RYAN STEVENS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM JAMES 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 (ECF No. 17) CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 22, 2010, Plaintiff Ryan Stevens, 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.)

On July 5, 2011, Plaintiff voluntarily amended his pleading. (ECF No. 9); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 10.)

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) 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 identifies the following individuals as Defendants:

(1) Matthew Cate, Secretary, Youth & Adult Corrections Agency; (2) James A. Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley States Prison (PVSP); (3) F. Igbinosa, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, PVSP; (4) Mario Deguchi, M.D., Radiologist; and (5) John Does 1 through 10.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Valley Fever is a potentially deadly disease prevalent at PVSP where Plaintiff is incarcerated. In November, 2005, Plaintiff began to experience "severe body aches, low grade fever, night sweats, coughing and an inordinate shortness of breath." (Compl. at 8.) A physician examined Plaintiff and ordered chest x-rays and a blood test to detect signs of Valley Fever. (Id.) The x-rays were conducted on December 6, 2005, and Defendant Deguchi reported his examination of those images on December 28, 2005. Deguchi noted "slight interval worsening of the left upper lobe infiltrate," but nevertheless ruled out Valley Fever. (Id. at 7.) However, the blood test followed in January, 2006, and showed Plaintiff tested positive for Valley Fever. (Id. at 8.) Deguchi conducted a follow-up examination under the impression that Plaintiff may have been suffering from pneumonia. He observed that what had been slight worsening a month prior was now "a near complete resolution . . . ." Defendant Deguchi misread the December 6, 2005, x-rays and allowed the Valley Fever spores to spread in Plaintiff's lungs "unchecked for an unreasonable amount of time." (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff began receiving treatment for his Valley Fever and the more significant symptoms abated. (Id. at 8.) However, Plaintiff continues to suffer chest and joint pain, shortness of breath, and exhaustion. (Id.) Valley Fever remains dormant in the body and can reactivate. Plaintiff will remain infected and suffer residual symptoms throughout his life. The threat of a relapse is a constant source of concern for ...


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.