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.

Geraldine Darden v. Dr. Singh

July 27, 2012

GERALDINE DARDEN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. SINGH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

FIRST SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

The Complaint 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 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Central California Womens Facility ("CCWF") in Chowchilla, California. (Compl. at 1.) In May of 2009, she was hospitalized for a loss of mobility at Fresno Community Hospital ("FCH"), where Defendant Dr. Singh diagnosed multiple sclerosis ("MS") and recommended treatment with the drug Avonex. (Id. at 4.) Defendant Mendhi, a medical doctor on staff at CCWF, prescribed Avonex and in September of 2009 Plaintiff began treatment with Avonex. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges she disclosed her history of cancer to Defendants during pre-treatment consultation. (Id.) She contends Avonex is a drug that increases one's risk of cancer. (Id.) Defendants did not disclose to her that Avonex increases the risk of cancer. (Id.) Plaintiff later developed cancer necessitating removal of her left breast. (Id.)

She attributes her breast cancer to Defendant Singh's errant recommendation of Avonex and Defendant Mendhi's errant treatment with Avonex. (Id. at 4-5.)

She names as Defendants (I) Singh, FCH medical doctor, and (ii) Mendhi, CCWF medical doctor. (Id. at 2-3.)

She seeks monetary compensation. ...


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.