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.

Anthony Paramore v. J. Ruiz

October 29, 2012

ANTHONY PARAMORE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. RUIZ, DEFENDANT.



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

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 8)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff Anthony Paramore, a former 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.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) on August 30, 2012 and determined that Plaintiff stated a single cognizable claim; all other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his desire to proceed only on his cognizable claim. (Id.) Plaintiff elected to file a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) 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

The First Amended Complaint names (1) Sergeant D. Stiles, (2) Correctional Officer (CO) T. Davis, and (3) CO J. Ruiz as Defendants in this action.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Plaintiff was thrown down. Defendant Stiles oversaw the entire course of events.

He told Defendant Ruiz to go to the support office and instructed Defendant Davis to take Plaintiff to the nurse's office. Plaintiff received no care at the nurse's office and went into shock as a result. Plaintiff was then moved to another clinic. (Compl. at 3.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two ...


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.