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.

Edwards v. California State Prison Los Angeles County

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 11, 2015

BRIAN D. EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND I. INTRODUCTION

SUZANNE H. SEGAL, Magistrate Judge.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff Brian D. Edwards, ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the "FAC, " Dkt. No. 27). Congress mandates that the court screen, as soon as practicable, "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion of it, before service of process if the court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). For the reasons stated below, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

II.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that the following defendants - all employees at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (the "Prison") - violated his civil rights: (1) N. Motz, identified as Director of Nurses; (2) nurse B. Ingram; (3) Warden F.B. Haws; (4) correctional officer T. Jerid; and correctional officers identified only as (5) Franscia, (6) Mikel, (7) Duenaz, and (8) Allen (collectively "Defendants"). (FAC at 5-6).[1] Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Id.).

Plaintiff raises three claims of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and safety.[2] In Claim I, Plaintiff asserts that on December 18, 2007, Ingram furnished Plaintiff with used or defective asthma inhalers, and then withheld asthma treatment for three days after Plaintiff complained. (Id. at 8, 10-12). Plaintiff contends that Motz permitted this "medical neglect" as Ingram's supervisor and that Warden Haws was ultimately responsible. (Id. at 8, 12). In Claim II, Plaintiff asserts that from August 23 to 30, 2008, while he was in administrative segregation, unnamed members of Motz's staff refused treatment for Plaintiff's breathing problems. (Id. at 13-14). Haws, as warden, allegedly condoned the nurses' "deliberate indifference." (Id. at 15).

In Claim III, Plaintiff asserts that on February 8, 2008, correctional officer T. Jerid physically assaulted Plaintiff by slamming a "food port" door on his hand, and then denied Plaintiff access to medical attention. (Id. at 9). Officers Franscia, Mikel, Allen and Duenaz allegedly witnessed the assault but did not take action or report the incident. (Id. at 17-18). A hospital treated Plaintiff for hand lacerations and swelling the next day. (Id. at 72-82). Then, on February 24, 2008, an unnamed correctional officer allegedly assaulted Plaintiff in "retaliation" for Plaintiff's reporting his earlier injury to the hospital. (Id. at 19). Plaintiff asserts that Haws was aware of both assaults but did not take action, in deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety. (Id. at 9, 15-16).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of "3 plus million against [D]efendants jointly and severally, " punitive damages in the same amount, a jury trial and costs.[3] (Id. at 21).

III.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint due to multiple pleading defects. However, the court must grant a pro se litigant leave to amend his defective complaint unless "it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ...


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.