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.

Roberto Herrera v. Nareddy

August 31, 2012

ROBERTO HERRERA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
NAREDDY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (ECF No. 14)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Roberto Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) He has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Decline of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 10, 2012. (First. Am. Compl., ECF No. 14). It 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

According to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint: Defendants Nareddy, Sosoida, and Carana, medical doctors on staff at Corcoran State Prison (CSP), have refused to treat Plaintiff's severe leg and back pain with effective medication, each ordering the same ineffective medications and each claiming there is nothing wrong with Plaintiff. (First Am. Compl. at 3-4.) Defendant Nareddy referred him to physical therapy, but his pain has prevented him from cooperating with the therapist. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Carana took his crutches because, he said, the physical therapist had advised that Plaintiff did not need them. (Id. at 6.) His related prison appeals have been improperly processed and denied. (Id. at 4-5.) He wrote to the prison Health Care Warden, Ms. Macias, but she took no action. (Id. at 6-7.)

Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Nareddy, (2) Sosioda, (3) Carana, and (4) Teresa Macias. (Id. at 2-3.)

Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation, a declaration his federal rights have been violated, and emergency injunctive relief ordering CSP health care staff to provide him with adequate pain treatment.*fn1 (Id. at 3.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements ...


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.