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.

Love v. Cate

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 27, 2014

CARL R. LOVE, Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT (Doc. 19)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Second Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Carl R. Love, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 16, 2011. On September 24, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims. After obtaining three extensions of time, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 8, 2013.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 must 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Amended Complaint

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at California Institution for Men in Chino, California, seeks to hold prison officials liable for transferring him to several prisons in California's Central Valley, where he contracted valley fever. Despite the Court's previous admonitions regarding statute of limitations and improper venue issues, Plaintiff again alleges claims based on events which occurred in 2005 and he again includes claims against prison officials at Deuel Vocational Institution ("DVI") in Tracy, California. Additionally, Plaintiff realleges his claims against staff at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California and Avenal State Prison ("ASP") in Avenal, California.

Named as Defendants are: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matthew L. Cate, DVI Warden S. R. More, DVI Chief Medical Officer John Doe, DVI Classification Services Representative L. Puig, PVSP Warden James A. Yates, PVSP Chief Medical Officer Felix Igbinosa, PVSP Classification Services Representative S. Requa, ASP Warden James D. Hartley, and ASP Chief Medical Officer Robert Chapnick. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Following his criminal conviction, Plaintiff was transferred from the Sacramento County Jail to DVI, a reception center, on or around March 9, 2005. Plaintiff had previously been diagnosed by a jail physician with asthma, TB exposure, and a hyperactive thyroid. Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2005, his medical history was not reviewed and the Chief Medical Officer at DVI failed to evaluate him. Plaintiff alleges that if those things had occurred, staff would have been determined that he was susceptible to coccidioidomycosis, or valley fever. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not advised he could appeal his transfer on medical grounds, which would have precluded his transfer to an area that was high risk for valley fever.

On March 24, 2005, Defendant Puig, a classification services representative at DVI, failed to inquire about a medical review before endorsing Plaintiff to PVSP.

On July 8, 2005, Plaintiff arrived at Corcoran State Prison, and he was subsequently transferred to PVSP on August 31, 2005. At PVSP's receiving and release, Plaintiff was evaluated by a nurse rather than a doctor. The nurse checked Plaintiff's blood pressure and temperature, and upon inquiry, the nurse told Plaintiff that when he reached the yard, he would receive ...


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.