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.

Micenheimer v. CDCR Personnel in their Individual Capacity

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 8, 2016

CORY DWAYNE MICENHEIMER, Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR PERSONNEL IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          JOHN E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Cory Dwayne Micenheimer (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”).

         SCREENING STANDARDS

         In accordance with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court must screen the FAC before ordering service to determine whether the action: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). This screening is governed by the following standards:

         A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

         Although a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (rejecting the traditional “no set of facts” standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). The complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to rise above the “speculative level, ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or the merely possible or conceivable. Id. at 557, 570.

         Simply put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the complaint presents enough facts “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard is not a probability requirement, but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with liability stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility. Id.

         In a pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be construed liberally to afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that the deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, pro se litigants are generally entitled to a notice of a complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to the dismissal of an action. Id. at 623. Only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment should the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. Id.; Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007).

         After careful review and consideration of the Complaint under the relevant standards and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Complaint must be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his confinement at California State Prison Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”). He names “CDCR Personnel In Their Individual Capacity” as Defendants in the caption of the Complaint. (Complaint at 1.) In the body of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff names P. Finander, S. Morris, and P. Shank as Defendants. (Id. at 3.) All Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to him, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he was denied appropriate medical care, forced to endure severe pain, denied adequate therapy, forced to walk with a buckling right knee with no cane, left to develop a crippling hand disability, left to develop a deformity in his shoulder and hand, and forced to go without ice packs. (Id.) He also references a “data breach.” (Id.) Rather than articulate the facts that give rise to his deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff attaches numerous pages of medical and other records.

         DISCUSSION

         I. PLAINTIFF MUST NAME ALL DEFENDANTS ...


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.