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.

Eckman v. Jackson

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 31, 2015

TOMMY CURTIS ECKMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIM AND DEFENDANTS

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Tommy Curtis Eckman ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on September 18, 2013.[1] The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint on February 3, 2014, and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 20, 2014. The Court dismissed the FAC on September 20, 2015, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend only his Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Jackson.

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on November 7, 2014. However, in addition to Defendant Jackson, Plaintiff also names R.N. Powell, R.N. Stronach and L.V.N. Does 1-5 as Defendants.

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; 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. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, where the events at issue occurred.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 23, 2013, Correctional Officer Lopez noticed blood on the back of his t-shirt and instructed Plaintiff to report to the D Facility Medical Clinic to have the wound cleansed and bandaged.

On that day, and numerous days thereafter, Plaintiff reported to clinic to have the wound cleaned and bandaged, to no avail. Plaintiff was repeatedly told that he needed to see the doctor first and sent back to his cell without any medical care.

From August 8 through August 13, 2013, Plaintiff saw Defendant Jackson, who asked why Plaintiff had not been using the cream. ECF No. 20, at 3. Plaintiff said that he was using the cream, but that it was not working. Plaintiff explained that it was difficult to reach the affected area and asked for an order for daily cleansing and bandaging by the nursing staff. Defendant Jackson agreed and told Plaintiff that he would write the order to begin the next day. However, Plaintiff alleges that "no such care was ever given." ECF No. 20, at 3.

On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff returned to Defendant Jackson. Defendant Jackson again stated that an order would be written for daily cleaning and bandaging, to begin the next day. Plaintiff asked how he could be certain that nursing staff would follow the order and was told that he would need to utilize the health care appeals process to ensure that staff followed the order. Plaintiff alleges that "no such care was ever given." ECF No. 20, at 3.

On numerous occasions thereafter, Plaintiff attempted to obtain cleansing and bandaging at every health care appointment and/or medication release. However, he was denied every time and was told that "there is no Dr.'s order for what you expect us to do." ECF No. 20, at 3. Plaintiff did not receive any care. On each attempt, the "relevant" nursing ...


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.