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.

Jamal Albert Jenkins v. James A. Yates

December 6, 2012

JAMAL ALBERT JENKINS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 20.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jamal Albert Jenkins ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This action was initiated by civil Complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 28, 2011, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On May 16, 2011, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 7.) The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and entered an order on July 13, 2012, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 18.) On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 20.)

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 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 is required to 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal 129 S.Ct. at 1949. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, where the events at issue allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants James A. Yates (Warden of PVSP), Anthony S. Lonigro (Chief Executive Officer of PVSP Health Services), J. Clark Kelso (Health Care Services Receiver), and Captain C. Herrera. Plaintiff alleges as follows in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff suffers from a rare but serious medical condition known as Paruresis or Shybladder Syndrome, which makes it difficult for those afflicted to urinate in front of other people. Some courts have recognized this condition as a mental disability which is covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that since 2008, CDCR Primary Care Providers have failed to provide him appropriate treatment, which caused Plaintiff to suffer unnecessary and degenerative injury.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant J. Clark Kelso, Health Care Services Receiver, decided a policy in response to Plaintiff's condition: "...your condition has no medical solution because the situation was unrelated to a physical condition." First Amd Cmp at 4 ¶11. Plaintiff also alleges that the Receiver's Office has not provided him with medically acceptable treatment. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Anthony S. Lonigro followed defendant Kelso's policy and therefore failed to provide him with appropriate medical treatment. Plaintiff also alleges that the Primary Care Providers under defendant Lonigro's supervision have expressed that they are unable to treat Plaintiff's Paruresis.

Plaintiff alleges that unnamed Appeals Coordinators have arbitrarily screened out Plaintiff's inmate appeals, thus denying Plaintiff appropriate medical treatment under defendant Lonigro's policy and practice. Plaintiff claims that the Appeals Coordinators' arbitrary screening has caused a "chilling effect on the assertion of legitimate claims." First Amd Cmp. at 6 ¶19.

Plaintiff requests monetary damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and costs and fees.

IV. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party ...


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.