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.

Paez v. Community Regional Medical Center

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 10, 2017

GUILLERMO G. PAEZ, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
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 DAYS

         Plaintiff 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.

         I.

         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 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).

         A 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 Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners 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.

         II.

         BACKGROUND

         On 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, [1] 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. (Id.)

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff alleges that although he is in the custody of the Fresno County Jail he is not receiving proper treatment. (Id.)

         On 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.)

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.