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.

Hall v. Guila

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 14, 2014

Lavell Hall, Plaintiff,
v.
Y.A. Guila, et al., Defendants,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO FILE LODGED AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 23) ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Majistrate Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Lavell Hall ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on November 14, 2011. On March 13, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint and transferred the action to this Court. (ECF No. 19.) On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff lodged an amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's lodged amended complaint.

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

In the interests of judicial economy, the Court now screens Plaintiff's amended complaint, which was lodged on July 29, 2013. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).

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). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.

III. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. The events alleged in the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Centinela State Prison, which is not located in this district, and at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Dr. Alex Peterson, Physician at Centinela State Prison; (2) Dr. Chamberlain, Physician at Centinela State Prison; (3) Dr. Mc.Cabe, Physician at CSP-Corcoran; (4) Dr. Edgar Clark, Medical Doctor at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California; and (5) Y. Aguila, Staff Service Manager during Plaintiff's incarceration at Centinela State Prison. The Court's review is limited solely to those defendants within the jurisdiction of this Court; that is, the Court's review is limited to Plaintiff's claims against Drs. McCabe and Clark.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff reported to medical staff in June 2007 regarding a severe foot problem. On October 19, 2007, Defendant Alex Peterson diagnosed the problem as keratoderma, possibly familial and psoriasis or possible tinea. The problem is described as a large plaque of thick hyperkeratotic skin on both heels extended onto the instep, which is symmetrical on both feet. It is bordered by hyperpigmented border on the lateral feet. There are several onychomycotic toenails as well as scaliness in the two webs.

From 2007 to the present, Plaintiff has complained about being in severe pain and not being able to stand or walk for any significant period of time. Plaintiff's treatment has only made the problem worse. On November 30, 2007, March 1, 2008 and June 2009, Dr. Peterson's treatment failed to rectify the problem. In many instances, treatment was ordered, but never received.

On July 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal grievance, which was granted at the first and second level through the third level. However, there was no treatment that eradicated the excruciating pain in Plaintiff's lower legs. The infection was diagnosed by a specialty physician, but no treatment was received on follow-up consultation as ordered.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff ...


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.