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.

Thornton v. Dileo

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 24, 2015

SIMON THORNTON, Plaintiff,
v.
L. DILEO, 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 Simon Thornton is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 28, 2015.

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 Doctor L. Dileo, Chief Medical Officer S. Lopez, Assistant Warden A. Pineda and Warden Martin D. Biter, as Defendants.

Plaintiff has nerve damage to his lower back from an incident sustained in 2006 prior to his incarceration for which he was previously received medical treatment. Upon his incarceration, all medical treatment seized. After a fall at Salinas Valley State Prison, Plaintiff was approved for Morphine 30 mg. twice a day. However, prior to disbursement of the medication Plaintiff was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison. Upon his arrival, Plaintiff was seen by Doctor Dileo who denied authorization to continue Morphine. Plaintiff requested multiple times for treatment but was denied. Due to deliberate indifference by Doctor Dileo, Plaintiff sustained a second fall injuring his head and eye which has resulted in a permanent scar.

Plaintiff wrote to both S. Lopez and Warden Biter informing them of the matter. Plaintiff received a response by S. Lopez who refused to act in this matter thereby being deliberately indifferent to his medical issues. Plaintiff also received a different letter on behalf of Warden Biter signed by A. Pineda also declining to take action in this matter thereby acting deliberating indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs.

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.