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.

Deno Eugene Woodis v. Pam Olive

January 31, 2013

DENO EUGENE WOODIS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PAM OLIVE, 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. 9) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff Deno Eugene Woodis, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the Complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it determines that the action has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," "fails 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "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 on 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 the following individuals as Defendants: (1) Pam Ahlin, past Acting Director; (2) Andre King, present Acting Director; and (3) Kathy Gaither, Acting Director in Sacramento.

Plaintiff's allegations are brief and fragmented. From what the Court can determine, Plaintiff alleges the following:

Christopher Ridge did not take his medication and was hearing voices. The Psych Tech failed to take measures to protect Plaintiff. Ridge physically attacked Plaintiff. Plaintiff was hurt. Defendant Ahlin was the Acting Director at the time and did not investigate the incident. Defendants Gaither and King "are being held due to my rights was violated." (Compl. at 2.)

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.