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.

Bennie Mathis v. J. Chokatos

July 30, 2012

BENNIE MATHIS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. CHOKATOS, M.D., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Bennie Mathis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on February 29, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in this action. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening

I. 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 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). "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).

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, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently housed at North Kern State Prison. The majority of the events at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"). Plaintiff appears to be alleging an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care against the following individuals: 1) J. Chokatos, medical doctor at PVSP, 2) J. Fortune, nurse practioner at PVSP, 3) A. Lonioro, chief executive officer at PVSP, and 4) L. D. Zamora, director level chief of appeals at California Correctional Health Care Services.

Plaintiff's alleged facts are difficult to understand. The Court will do its best to summarize Plaintiff's allegations as follows:

Defendants, one of whom is a neuro-specialist or neurosurgeon, violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty under the Due Process Clause. Plaintiff needed offsite medical care. Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical need. Plaintiff's serious medical need was found by Dr. Calvin, a neuro-specialist. Defendants ignored Dr. Calvin's opinion and recommendation and deprived Plaintiff of his medical and disability rights.

Plaintiff asks for a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, an order that CDCR not retaliate against him, that his medical and disability accommodations be restored, and $10,000 in damages from each Defendant.

III. ANALYSIS

A. § 1983 Analysis

§ 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). § 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating ...


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.