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.

Armando Lujan Martinez v. Avenal State Prison

December 21, 2012

ARMANDO LUJAN MARTINEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AVENAL STATE PRISON, 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. 13) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Armando Lujan Martinez, 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. 9.)

On October 31, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) 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 identifies the following Avenal State Prison (Avenal) officials as Defendants in this action: (1) James D. Hartley, Warden; (2) John Doe 1, Warden; (3) John Doe 2, Warden; and (4) John Doe 3, Warden.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Plaintiff arrived at Avenal in 2005. Various signs on the prison grounds warned that individuals with asthma were vulnerable to contracting Valley Fever. Plaintiff is asthmatic and suffers from bronchitis so he "spoke with Defendant (Warden) for desire and relief." (Compl. at 3.) The Warden referred Plaintiff to the written inmate grievance procedure. Plaintiff filed numerous inmate appeals regarding his susceptibility to Valley Fever. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff's appeals. Plaintiff eventually contracted Valley Fever and in 2008 was sent to an outside hospital for treatment. (Id.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section ...


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.