United States District Court, E.D. California
GUILLERMO G. PAEZ, JR., Plaintiff,
COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER
SECTION 1983 (ECF NO. 11) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
Guillermo G. Paez, Jr. is appearing pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
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” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
November 12, 2016, Plaintiff admitted himself to the
emergency room at Community Regional Medical Center
(“CRMC”) for a spider bite on his right forearm.
(Third Am. Compl. 3,  ECF No. 11.) At the time, Plaintiff was on
parole and receiving medical coverage under the local
government assistance program. (Id.) After being
diagnosed by medical staff, Plaintiff's arm was treated
by Drs. Manesh and Manternach who incised and drained the
infection to reduce the swelling. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff was left with an open wound that was not closed
with stitches or staples. (Id.) An unknown doctor
monitored Plaintiff's condition. (Id.) Plaintiff
developed methicillin resistant staph aureus
(“MRSA”) on his right forearm which he alleges
was due to the use of a dirty or infected medical instrument.
(Id.) Plaintiff was required to go for a second
surgery which was approved by the Chief Medical Officer.
was taken into custody by the Fresno County Sheriff
Department on November 16, 2016. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff was transported to CRMC prior to booking at the
jail to get medical clearance. (Id.) Plaintiff was
admitted back into the care of CRMC. (Id.) Plaintiff
was informed that he was going to be seen by an orthopedics
surgical team. (Id.) The following day, pictures
were taken of Plaintiff's arm and a pick-line was
installed in his left bicep to administer medication to fight
the MRSA infection and keep it from spreading. (Id.)
Drs. Brambila and Macias performed surgery to prevent the
MRSA infection from spreading which caused muscle and skin
tissue to be removed from the infected area, creating an open
wound. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff received a permanent
scar as a result of the surgery. (Id. at 7.)
alleges that although he is in the custody of the Fresno
County Jail he is not receiving proper treatment.
February 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint which was
screened and dismissed with leave to amend for failure to
state a claim. (ECF Nos. 1, 4.) On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint that was screened and
dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
(ECF Nos. 5, 6.) On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.)
brings this action against CRMC and the following employees
of the hospital: Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Supreet Manesh,
Dr. Manteranch, Dr. Maximino Brambila, and Dr. F. Macias.
(Sec. Am. Compl. 3.) Plaintiff contends that Dr. Manesh, Dr.
Manteranch, Dr. Brambila, and Dr. Macias violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment by their unlawful actions and willful disregard
for the health and safety of patient care; and the Chief