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.

Jason Deaver v. Margaret Mims

November 6, 2012

JASON DEAVER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARGARET MIMS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING (1) ACTION PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT NARAYAN AND (2) DEFENDANT MIMS AND CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DISMISSED (Doc. 8) THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Jason Deaver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 17, 2011. On May 15, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim under section 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2012.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

While prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Wasco State Prison, brings this action against Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims and psychiatrist P. Narayan for violating his rights while he was at the Fresno County Jail.

Plaintiff alleges that he has bipolar disorder and after trial and error with other medications, he was being successfully treated for the disorder with lithium. While at the jail, Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant Narayan regarding his mental health issues. Plaintiff provided Defendant with records which documented the effective treatment of his condition with lithium. Defendant told Plaintiff that the jail did not provide lithium because it was not cost effective, and Celexa was available to Plaintiff. Plaintiff showed Defendant records which documented unsuccessful trials and errors with other medications, including Celexa, but Defendant said it was the best he could do because that was all that was available.

Plaintiff alleges that as result of the discontinuation of lithium, his mental health deteriorated and he cut his wrists in two suicide attempts while in the throes of mania and severe depression. Plaintiff also alleges that he reacted violently in jail due to uncontrollable mood swings, and despite his known mental health issues and his grievances seeking help, he has been left to unnecessarily suffer for almost two years.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief in the form of an order mandating his evaluation by a competent psychiatrist and ...


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.