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.

Brownlee v. Lam

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 7, 2017

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, Plaintiff,
v.
P. LAM, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK DKT. NOS. 3 AND 6

          WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Terrence Brownlee alleges that medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

         The complaint has stated claims against some, but not all, of the named defendants. The defendants against whom valid claims have been made shall be served, while the insufficiently stated claims will be dismissed with leave to amend, and the persons named whose claims are being dismissed should not be served. If Brownlee wishes to pursue the dismissed claims, he must file an amended complaint (containing all the claims he wishes to pursue, including the valid ones mentioned above, and addressing the deficiencies described below) on or before May 15, 2017.

         The 90-day period within which defendants may file a response to the current complaint will not start until (1) defendants are served with the amended complaint, if one is filed, or (2) May 16, 2017, if no amended complaint is filed.

         Defendants are to adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 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).

         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).

         B. Legal Claims

         Brownlee, a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, claims medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He has stated claims against the following defendants for failing to approve or administer constitutionally adequate medical care: Z. Ahmed; S. Posson; J. Lewis; P. Lam; J. Kalisher; M. Sweet; M. Lester; and T. Friedrichs.

         But Brownlee has failed to state claims against the following defendants: D. Lamb; K. Hoffman; D. Nananjo; E. Nuano; Julien; V. Mills, J. Palomeno; and T. Fifield. although Brownlee lists these names in his complaint, he fails to provide specific allegations against ...


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.