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.

James A. Mosier v. California Department of

July 3, 2012

JAMES A. MOSIER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, MATTHEW CATE, KATHLEEN ALLISON, MAURICE JUNIOUS, E. ENONMEH, TIGGS BROWN, DR. A. VASUDEVA, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER J. SALINAS CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RODRIGUEZ, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER J. WILLIAMS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VIGARINO, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TOSTE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MATA, NURSE ABEYDNA, NURSE VILLASENOR, NURSE OLEMEKO, NURSE JIAN YANG, AND DOES 1-50.
DEFENDANTS.



FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The plaintiff, James A. Mosier, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is an action for money damages and injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794) and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution in response to plaintiff's experience of cruel and unusual punishment, medical neglect and failure to make reasonable accommodations for his medical needs as an epileptic. Defendants demonstrated this deliberate indifference and lack of accommodation by (A) denying plaintiff access to anti-seizure medication and failing to administer the medication at prescribed times (B) failing to provide plaintiff with a protective helmet to prevent injury to plaintiff's head during seizures, (C) mocking and trivializing plaintiff's condition and repeatedly claiming that plaintiff is faking his seizures, (D) taking actions, such as flashing flashlights in plaintiff's eyes, with the deliberate intention of triggering seizures, and (E) repeatedly telling plaintiff that nothing can done to help his situation because it is a "medical issue," but (F) failing to transfer plaintiff to a medical facility adequately equipped to handle plaintiff's condition. As a result of defendants' conduct, during a five-month period of incarceration, plaintiff frequently struck his unprotected head on the floor during his repeated seizures. According to a recent evaluation by a neurologist, Plaintiff has suffered a traumatic brain injury and now shows abnormal activity on the right side of his brain. To this day, plaintiff continues to be housed in a facility that is unequipped to address his serious medical needs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1343 (civil rights violation), § 2201 (declaratory relief). This action arises under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) in that plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) State Prison, located in this District, and plaintiff suffered a substantial part of the harm discussed in this complaint while incarcerated in that facility.

THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff James A. Mosier is an inmate of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who is currently confined at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) State Prison, 900 Quebec Ave., Corcoran, California, 93212. Prior to being housed in SATF, Plaintiff was housed in North Kern State Prison, 2737 West Cecil Ave., Delano, CA 93216.

5. Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations is the operator of California's prison system, which is sued here for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

6. Defendant Matthew Cate, is the Director of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, and he is sued both in his individual and his official capacity.

7. Defendant Kathleen Allison, is the Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF), and she is sued both her individual and her official capacity.

8. Defendant Maurice Junious is the Warden of North Kern State Prison, and he is sued in his individual capacity.

9. Defendant E. Enonmeh is the Chief Medical Officer of SATF. He is sued in his individual capacity.

10. Defendant Tiggs Brown is a nurse at SATF. She is sued in her individual capcity.

11. Defendants J. Salinas, J. Williams, Vigarino, Toste, Rodriguez and Mata are correctional officers at SATF. They are sued in their individual capacities.

12. Defendant Abeydna, Villasenor and Olemeko are nurses at SATF. They are sued in their individual capacities.

13. Defendant Jian Yang is a nurse at North Kern State Prison. Yang is sued in her individual capacity.

14. Plaintiff is ignorant of some of the full names of the defendants and the true names of Does 1-50 but alleges that they engaged in deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs, engaged in conduct that constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his disability. When plaintiff discovers the Doe Defendants' true names, he will amend his complaint accordingly.

FACTS

15. Defendant is epileptic. Prior to being incarcerated, he experienced seizures roughly every two weeks.

16. Plaintiff began his current period of incarceration on March 17, 2011, and was initially housed at North Kern State Prison.

17. For the first four days plaintiff was at North Kern State Prison, he was not given any anti-seizure medication.

18. Plaintiff immediately began experiencing more frequent and more intense seizures. During these seizures, he would involuntarily hit his head against the floor.

19. On April 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a "Request for Interview" form on which he noted that he had been having "several seizures weekly" and that the seizures had been "progressing and getting worse [rather] than better."

20. On April 5, 2011, plaintiff filed an administrative 602HC form asking for medical treatment and an evaluation to determine why he was having so many seizures.

21. On April 12, 2011, Defendant JIAN YANG began giving plaintiff the medication Depakote, in spite of the fact that plaintiff stated he was allergic to Depakote. This administration of medicine continued for two weeks, during which time plaintiff experienced ...


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.