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.

McRae v. Bairamian

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 28, 2017

MICHAEL SCOTT McRAE, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DIKRAN BAIRAMIAN, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM

          GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         Michael Scott McRae (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)

         On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

         II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         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). To state a viable claim, 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

         III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at the United States Penitentiary (USP)-Atwater in Atwater, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Dikran Bairamian, Dr. Kevin Cuong Nguyen, Adrian Kumar (RNFA), and Dr. David Betz (collectively, “Defendants”), who were employed at the Memorial Medical Center in Modesto, California, during the relevant time period. The Defendants were governmental actors.

         Plaintiff's allegations follow. On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff was taken to Modesto Memorial Hospital after being given several MRI tests showing that he needed lower back surgery. Instead, Dr. Bairamian, Dr. Nguyen, and associates wrongfully gave Plaintiff upper back surgery. Dr. Bairamian and Dr. Nguyen are health care providers who do surgery for federal inmates housed at USP-Atwater. Plaintiff was not aware and did not consent to upper back surgery. The doctors did not inform Plaintiff of the upper back surgery, which was unnecessary and constituted medical battery. Plaintiff's lower back surgery was delayed, causing Plaintiff further harm. Plaintiff's legs stay stiff, he cannot stand, walk, or hold his balance, and he endures severe pain, suffering, and disability from the delay.

         Plaintiff requests monetary damages.

         IV. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         Plaintiff brings Bivens claims under the Fourth, Eighth, 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.