Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Doop v. Woodford

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 14, 2015

CHRIS DOOP, Plaintiff,
WOODFORD, et al., Defendant.


DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Chris Doop ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff commenced this action by writing a letter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 10, 2014. He filed his complaint on October 24, 2014. On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") as a matter of right.[1]


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.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; 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, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.


Plaintiff is now out of custody. The events at issue occurred while he was incarcerated at Avenal State Prison ("ASP").

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have a duty to provide a safe environment to inmates, but they disregarded their duty by placing him at risk of Valley Fever exposure. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants continue to house inmates who test negative for Valley Fever at ASP, despite a court order. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are "falsifying lab results and medical records to stop litigation for Valley Fever" because of jobs. ECF No. 13, at 3. He explains that Defendants have posted information on Valley Fever that states that everyone has an equal chance of contracting the disease, but they have transferred Blacks and Filipinos from ASP. Plaintiff states that White and Hispanic inmates are left to suffer.

Defendants also refuse to permit Plaintiff to send his blood to an outside lab, at his expense, for a second opinion. Plaintiff has requested a transfer from ASP due to preexisting medical conditions (Hepatitis C).

He also alleges that Defendants have refused treatment for Hepatitis C, and have created a protocol that is illegal and unconstitutional. He contends that on May 14, 2014, Defendants found a growth on Plaintiff's liver and ordered a biopsy, but the biopsy was denied. He was also lied to, and suffered for months with joint pain while trying to find out what was wrong with him.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are committing mail fraud to stop litigation for Valley Fever. He also believes that Defendants are blocking access to the courts.


1. Linkage and ...

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.