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.

Michael A. Sparkman v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

November 29, 2012

MICHAEL A. SPARKMAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 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 (ECF No. 7) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff Michael A. Sparkman, 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.)

On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) 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 Complaint names the following individuals as Defendants: (1) John Doe #1, Warden, San Quentin State Prison (SQSP); (2) John Doe #2, Classification Service Representative (CSR), SQSP; (3) James A. Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP); and (4) Frank Igbinosa, Medical Director, PVSP.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

On August 3, 2006, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issued a memorandum acknowledging the prevalence of Valley Fever in particular CDCR facilities. (Compl. at 4.) The document identified categories of inmates who were to be removed and kept out of facilities where Valley Fever was endemic. For example, inmates with chronic lung disease requiring oxygen therapy were to be removed from, or not transferred to, PVSP. (Id. at 17-20.) According to the memorandum, "the CSR shall ensure inmates identified as being susceptible to Valley Fever organism are not endorsed to institutions located in the endemic area." (Id. at 20.) The document was addressed to Health Care Managers, Wardens, and Classification Representatives. (Id. at 17.)

Plaintiff was screened at SQSP by a CSR for medical conditions on an unspecified date in December 2008. Plaintiff was identified as suffering from a severe case of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, which affects the lungs and requires oxygen therapy. Nevertheless, on December 23, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to PVSP, a facility identified as within the zone endemic to Valley Fever. (Id. at 5.)

Housing Plaintiff at PVSP posed a serious medical risk to him because he was an at-risk inmate as defined by the Valley Fever memorandum. The transfer contravened CDCR Valley Fever policy made known to each Defendant. John Does #1 and #2 failed to ensure adherence to the policy and thereby allowed Plaintiff to be transferred to PVSP. (Id. at 4, 5.)

Warden Yates also failed to adhere to the policy when he approved the receipt of Plaintiff at PVSP. (Id. at 6.) Defendant Igbinosa was responsible for the medical care provided at PVSP. Igbinosa failed to ensure that his staff was properly trained to screen incoming prisoners. ...


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.