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.

Meyers v. Biter

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 23, 2015

EVERETT LEE MEYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
M.D. BITER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 1]

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Everett Lee Meyers is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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 demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Warden M.D. Biter and Doctor Chen as Defendants in this action.

On September 14, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation on the yard at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). Plaintiff was seriously injured and sustained extensive damage to his right shoulder. Plaintiff was immediately taken to Delano Regional Medical Center. While hospitalized, Plaintiff was in excruciating pain and discomfort and x-rays were ordered and taken.

Plaintiff contends the x-rays were read inadequately. Plaintiff contends medical staff at KVSP deliberately denied him adequate medical treatment for the severe injuries he sustained to his right shoulder. Plaintiff filed inmate grievances regarding the pain and inadequate pain medication he was receiving.

On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff received a new x-ray of his right shoulder. On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff was examined by orthopedic surgeon, Doctor David Smith. Dr. Smith examined the new x-rays and discovered that Plaintiff had a third degree AC separation on his right shoulder.

Doctor Smith informed Plaintiff that he was recommending Plaintiff to undergo repair of the AC separation, and surgery was scheduled, along with pain management.

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff was interviewed by Doctor Chen who informed Plaintiff that he was denying surgery because "he didn't care for" Dr. Smith's recommendations. Doctor Chen informed Plaintiff that while he agreed with Doctor Smith's recommendations that Plaintiff needed urgent surgery, Chen said he had to deny Plaintiff's surgery per policy. Plaintiff also asked Doctor Chen for stronger pain medication because he could not sleep from the excruciating pain. Doctor Chen denied Plaintiff adequate pain medication.

III.

...


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.