United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM
FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE (ECF No. 1) THIRTY DAY
Adrian Alexander Woodard is a state prisoner appearing pro se
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Currently before
the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed on July 28,
2016. (ECF No. 1.)
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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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 Service, 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” fall short of satisfying the
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is a state inmate in the custody of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at the
Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”), which is where the
events at issue here occurred. Plaintiff names Dr. Wang, a
doctor at CSP, as Defendant (“Defendant Wang”).
Plaintiff alleges as follows: on September 11, 2015,
Plaintiff fell down the stairs and twisted his right ankle
during an adverse cell move.
was seen by Nurse Serna at the facility medical clinic and a
few hours later was escorted via wheelchair to the
institutional hospital (“ACH”) and seen by Nurse
E. Crawford. After consultation with Defendant Wang, it was
determined that Plaintiff would be returned to his housing
unit, he was administered Ibuprofen, and he was discharged.
September 12, 2015, Plaintiff returned to ACH for a follow-up
with Defendant Wang, during which Plaintiff repetitiously
complained about pain, loss of sleep, and gravid swelling.
Defendant Wang stated, “[t]here is nothing I can do for
you beside prescribe pain medication.” Plaintiff
responded, “[t]he medicine is not relieving my
pain.” Defendant Wang then said, “[g]rown man
[sic] handle pain.” Plaintiff was ordered to leave and
was returned back to his housing unit where he endured severe
pain, excessive swelling, and loss of sleep. Plaintiff
complained to medical staff, but was denied treatment due to
Defendant Wang's orders.
September 13, 2015, Plaintiff was seen by R.N. Sparlin at ACH
and Plaintiff expressed his pain and requested treatment for
his ankle. Plaintiff asked to be sent to a hospital and
stated that he had not slept in over 2 days and that the
Ibuprofen was not relieving his pain and suffering. Plaintiff
was sent back to his housing unit.
September 14, 2015, Plaintiff had x-rays taken at ACH and Dr.
Shultz's report indicates that there was a comminuted
fracture of the distal fibula. That same day, Plaintiff was
sent to Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield for treatment. When
Plaintiff arrived there, Plaintiff told Dr. Ahmed that the
injury occurred on September 11, 2015. Dr. Ahmed stated,
“I wonder why it took so long to send you, because now
the swelling is so bad I cannot set the bone.”
Plaintiff replied, “I don't know.” Plaintiff
was admitted to the hospital and received treatment for the
excessive swelling and in the days that followed received a
cast for his ankle.
alleges an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs against Defendant Wang. He also
alleges a state law claim for a violation of Section 845.6 of
the California Government Code against Defendant Wang. He
further alleges that the failure to immediately treat his
ankle condition has resulted in a permanent limp and chronic
pain which seriously affect his activities in prison.