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.

Smith v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 15, 2014

CLIFFORD SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Defendant.

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Clifford ("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's complaint, filed on June 12, 2013, is currently before the Court for screening.

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); Mossy. 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.

II. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California. The events alleged in the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"). Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"); (2) John Doe #1, PVSP Warden; (3) John Doe #2, PVSP Chief Medical Officer; (4) Dr. Green, PVSP Physician; and (5) Dr. Randolph Wilson, III, PVSP Physician.

Plaintiff alleges: In 2013, Plaintiff was 47 years old. He is identified by CDCR as having a disability. At the time he entered CDCR, he suffered from asthma, allergies and heart disease.

On August 21, 2009, Plaintiff was issued a comprehensive accommodation chrono that restricted him to a ground floor cell, and a bottom bunk. The chrono was issued because Plaintiff suffered a stroke that caused mobility impairment while housed at the Sierra Conservation Camp.

On or about October 9, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to PVSP because of his mobility impairment. PVSP is a designated facility for mobility impairments. However, due to Plaintiff's asthma and heart disease, his placement at PVSP placed him in danger of contracting Valley Fever.

Upon arriving at PVSP, Plaintiff complained to the attending doctor that he feared contracting Valley Fever because of his condition. Both Defendants Green and Wilson rejected Plaintiff's concerns and approved his continued housing at PVSP.

On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff was placed into the local hospital, suspected of contracting Valley Fever. He was discharged from the hospital on August 26, 2010, with diagnoses of pneumonia, Valley Fever and hypertension.

On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a CDC-602 regarding his inappropriate placement at PVSP and his ...


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.