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.

Hadden v. Kernan

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 12, 2016

MICHAEL KENNETH HADDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE KERNAN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          JOSEPH C. SPERO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other statutes in which he alleges medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison provided constitutionally inadequate medical care. After conducting a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 15, 2016.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

         A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994).

         B.Legal Claims

         Plaintiff alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1985 and various state laws.

         1. Section 1983

         (a) Claims Against Medical Staff

         Plaintiff alleges that from 2009 to 2011 and in 2013, Drs. Gamboa, E. Sullivan, M. Danial, K. Kumar, each at times plaintiff's primary care physician at Salinas Valley State Prison, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide appropriate medications. He also alleges that E. Golding, a nurse; M. Sepulveda, Chief Medical Officer; G. Ellis, Chief Executive Officer; and L.D. Zamora failed to intervene when they reviewed plaintiff's complaints about his physicians' treatment.

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         When liberally construed, plaintiff has stated claims against Drs. Gamboa, E. Sullivan, M. Danial, K. Kumar, M. Sepulveda, G. Ellis, and L.D. Zamora. These claims, though cognizable, must be realleged in the amended complaint. If ...


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.