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.

Salazar v. Kokor

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 27, 2014

EFRAIN SALAZAR, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. KOKOR, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ECF No. 1 AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

On February 18, 2014, Efrain Salazar ("Plaintiff"), an individual proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening. No other parties have appeared in the action.

I. 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 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678.

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF"), where the events at issue in his Complaint occurred. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment by providing him with inadequate medical care. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants subjected him to medical malpractice. Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants: 1) Dr. Kokor, 2) California Health Care Department of Corrections, and 3) the State of California.

More specifically, Plaintiff's alleges as follows:

Plaintiff suffers from post-polio pain syndrome. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff saw Defendant Kokor on March 2013 and asked to be referred to a pain management specialist because his pain medication regimen was ineffective. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant Kokor refused to recommend Plaintiff to a specialist or change Plaintiff's pain medications. (Id. at 4.) Due to Defendant Kokor's inaction, Plaintiff has experienced severe pain, spasms, and nausea. (Id.)

Plaintiff asks for $250, 000 in punitive damages, $250, 000 in compensatory damages, $250, 000 in exemplary damages, and an injunction directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with effective pain management treatment.

III. ANALYSIS

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

42 U.S.C. § 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). § 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for ...


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.