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.

Townsend v. King

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 14, 2014

REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND, Plaintiff,
v.
AUDREY KING, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BRINGING AN ACTION IN STATE COURT (Doc. 16.) ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO THE "THREE-STRIKES" PROVISION SET FORTH IN 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE THIS CASE

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rebio Ronnie Townsend ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this case on October 18, 2013. (Doc. 1.)

On November 14, 2013 and December 26, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Docs. 7, 14.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

The court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and issued an order on March 17, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 15.) On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 16.)

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The in forma pauperis statutes provides that "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, 1949 (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) (emphasis added). 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). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a civil detainee presently housed at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) under the Welfare & Institutions Code § 6600 et seq., known as the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Act. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Saowarut Kittimongcolporn (Staff Psychiatrist), Simarjit S. Gill, and Dr. Joyce Brown. Plaintiff's factual allegations follow.

On January 13, 2013, Dr. Joyce Brown appeared in Fresno County Superior Court, swore an oath to tell the truth, took the stand, and proceeded to perjure herself by testifying that Plaintiff needs psychiatric medication for a severe mental illness he does not have and never had. She stated that Plaintiff threatened to kill a doctor, and shoved a man and stepped in front of him in the line in the dining room. Dr. Kitty got involved after the Judge said Plaintiff wasn't a danger to himself or to others any longer, but ordered that he remain on psychiatric medication that he has been forced to take against his will for the last ten years, since 2005, for no good reason. Plaintiff is taking six tablets. They say Plaintiff has a severe mental disorder, but they don't describe what he's doing. The reason for this is they are all lying. Dr. Kitty decided to raise the level of medication. The lie about Plaintiff's mental illness should no longer be allowed to continue.

Plaintiff requests only injunctive relief, via a court order requiring the hospital to stop forcing him to take psychiatric medication.

IV. PLAINTIFF'S FORCED MEDICATION CLAIM

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...


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.