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

March 28, 2013

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

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS (ECF No. 17) PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE

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.)

Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1), First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), and Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on October 29, 2012, November 30, 2012, and February 27, 2013, respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 5, 9, and 16.) Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) 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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Third Amended 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 at particular correctional facilities. The document identified categories of inmates who were to be removed and kept out of facilities where Valley Fever was endemic. (Compl. at 17-20.) For example, inmates with chronic lung disease requiring oxygen therapy were to be removed from, or not transferred to, PVSP. (Id. at 17-18.) According to the memorandum, "[Classification Staff Representatives] shall ensure inmates identified as being susceptible to Valley Fever organism are not endorsed to institutions located in the endemic area." (Id. at 23.) Receiving and Release Nurses at facilities within the endemic area were to screen incoming inmates for susceptibility to Valley Fever. (Id. at 19.) The document was addressed to Health Care Managers, Wardens, and Classification Representatives. (Id. at 17.)

Another memorandum followed on January 16, 2007. The second document was addressed to Health Care Managers and provided instructions on identifying inmates infected with Valley Fever. (Id. at 21, 24.)

Plaintiff was transferred from SQSP to PVSP on December 23, 2008. (Id. at 3, 6, 12.) Upon arrival at PVSP, Plaintiff underwent a "Valley Fever Risk Criteria Checklist" performed by an unknown nurse. The checklist reflects that Plaintiff did not fall within a medical category for Valley Fever susceptibility. (Id. at 12.) However, at the time of the transfer, Plaintiff suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and required continuous oxygen therapy. (Id. at 3, 5, 6.) Plaintiff's medical condition was recorded in his central file for the purpose of flagging Plaintiff as not to be housed where Valley Fever was endemic. His condition was also reflected in his medical ...


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.