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.

Ryan Bigoski-Odom v. Solano County Justice Center

October 19, 2012

RYAN BIGOSKI-ODOM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 10). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a ". . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Jessie, a physician's assistant; Firman, a doctor; and the facility medical director of the Solano County Jail.*fn1 Plaintiff claims:

As of June 28th 2011 until November 2011 I was denied my HIV/AIDS medication. When I was arrested on June 22nd 2011 I was brought to Solano County Jail from Kaiser Hospital in Vacaville CA with all my HIV/AIDS medication. Upon intake with one of the many facility nurses I advised them of my condition and my HIV/AIDS medication was given to the facility nurse by detective Poltolaki from the Vallejo Police Department. I was put in the infirmary of the jail and was given my HIV/AIDS medication on June 23rd 2011 and June 24th 2011. I was then sent back to the hospital Kaiser in Vallejo on June 25th 2011 then released back in custody on June 28th 2011. And from that day all the way until the beginning of November 2011 I was denied all my HIV/AIDS medication. I expressed my concerns numerous times to the physicians assistant Mrs. Jessie, as well as Dr. James Firman who both told me they have been talking to the facility medical director about me and my condition and still nothing had been done. I had quite a few blood draws done in between the time of June 28th 2011 until the beginning of November 2011. I expressed my concerns about my blood work as well and that I was supposed to see a specialist since I was newly diagnosed with the disease right before I was incarcerated. All my blood work was not good which I let hte physicians assistant Mrs. Jessie know and she conferred with the medical director of the facility as well as Dr. James Firman. They were all aware of my condition and did absolutely nothing to remedy it. I also asked on numerous occasions to see my specialists which I was also denied. I knew my T-cell count was extremely low and that my viral load was extremely high and both of those levels pertain to my HIV/AIDS and because of those levels being what ...


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.