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.

Mills v. Bowden

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 9, 2017

M. BOWDEN, et al, Defendants.


         Plaintiff David Ray Mills (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he did not receive prompt medical attention for his right foot injury, and generally that the prison is in need of better medical protocols.

         Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 17, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On September 28, 2016, the Court Plaintiff's Complaint and found that it failed to state a claim as to any defendant. (ECF No. 10.) Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations that he did not receive prompt treatment for his ingrown toe and that his doctor was negligent did not state an Eighth Amendment constitutional claim for deliberate indifference for serious medical needs because Plaintiff did not allege the delay itself resulted in a serious medical injury. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not allege that any defendant was aware of his serious medical condition and intentionally ignored the risk to his health. Finally, Plaintiff did not allege how any individual or individuals harmed him personally. Plaintiff was provided with the applicable legal standards and granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.)

         Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on October 31, 2016 (ECF No. 12). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint with further guidance and leave to amend on December 16, 2016. (ECF No. 13)

         Before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, dated January 19, 2017. (ECF No. 14) Because the Court finds that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under the legal standards, and because further amendment would be futile, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and closes the case.


         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 is required to 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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

         To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. Id. 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. Id.


         Plaintiff alleges that his right foot top side was injured during performing work duties at 7:30 am on January 1, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that the medical staff neglected him and treated him with indifference. Staff did not care about this incident and were not prepared to handle simple operations due to staff under training. As a result, Plaintiff suffered severe pain. The staff should be reprimanded for their actions.

         Specifically, Plaintiff had a left foot ingrown toenail. He was supposed to receive an x-ray on January 29, 2014. Plaintiff finally went to Delano State Prison for an x-ray, but the technical stated that it could not x-ray an open would. After delay and additional forms, Plaintiff's left big toenail was removed. However, he failed to receive appropriate medical attention for his right toenail and was in unbearable pain as a result.

         Plaintiff also alleged that he required medical care on another occasion on March 10, 2015. In this incident as well, medical staff was not prepared for inmate capacity. RN Daniels did not care about proper procedures. Dr. Le Young was overwhelmed and part time at the facility.


         A. ...

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.