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.

Donnie Ray O'neal, Jr v. California Department of Corrections

July 31, 2012

DONNIE RAY O'NEAL, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS (ECF No. 21)

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff Donnie Ray O'Neal, Jr., 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 May 24, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The First Amended Complaint names the following individuals as Defendants: (1) Timothy Byers, Physicians Assistant, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran (CSATF/SP); (2) A. Enenmoh, Chief Medical Officer (CMO), CSATF/SP; (3) G. Miller, Health Care Appeals Coordinator (HCAC), CSATF/SP; (4) S. Umi, HCAC, CSATF/SP; (5) K. Allison, Warden, CSATF/SP; and (6) Director, California Department of Corrections (CDC).

Plaintiff alleges the following:

On February 25, 2009, Defendant Byers falsified Plaintiff's medical records by removing Plaintiff's disability status. Policy at CSATF/SP dictates that guards responding to an emergency situation adopt special procedures when treating or responding to disabled inmates. Absent a "disabled" status, guards will expect Plaintiff to conduct himself as a regular inmate and Plaintiff is not capable of doing so. This puts him at risk for alleged failure to comply . Defendant Byers acted in deliberate indifference to that risk when he falsified Plaintiff's medical records. (Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant Allison's office on February 29, 2009. Allison was deliberately indifferent to the risk to Plaintiff's safety as she knows CSATF/SP policy and the danger a disabled inmate could face without being identified as disabled. (Id.) Defendants G. Miller and S. Umi, as the HCACs, exhibited deliberate indifference and violated Plaintiff's due process rights by "'rubber stamping'" Plaintiff's complaint. (Id.) Defendant Enenmoh ignored Plaintiff's complaint for several weeks as it sat on his desk awaiting his review and signature. Enenmoh's disregard of Plaintiff's complaint demonstrates deliberate indifference to the risk of harm faced by Plaintiff. (Id.) The Director of the CDCR exhibited deliberate indifference by permitting his designee to let Plaintiff's complaint go unanswered. (Id. at 4.)

After Plaintiff filed his civil rights action with this court, Defendant Enenmoh began retaliating against Plaintiff by refusing to renew various medical accommodations prescribed for Plaintiff by a gastrointestinal specialist. Plaintiff was denied pain management, a lower bunk, unlimited toilet flushes, and a special diet. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth, Fourteenth, and First Amendment rights.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section ...


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.