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.

Chan v. Marciano

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 13, 2017

HOY CHAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ORRY MARCIANO, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         On December 6, 2016, Plaintiff Hoy Chan (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1).

         Congress mandates that the court screen, as soon as practicable, “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion of it, before service of process if the court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.[1]

         II.

         ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff names the following Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (“CVSP”) employees as defendants in their official and individual capacities: (1) physician's assistant, Orry Marciano (“Marciano”); (2) Nurse Beatres; (3) Correctional Officer Anderson (“Anderson”); and (4) Correctional Officer Calvillo (“Calvillo”) (collectively “Defendants”). (Compl. at 3-4).

         Plaintiff alleges that Marciano engaged in the “unauthorized practice of medicine” by prescribing medication to Plaintiff without being a “real doctor” or making a diagnosis. (Id. at 3, 5). As a result of Marciano's treatment, Plaintiff has become “weak” and his “breathing problem” has deteriorated. Nurse Anderson ignored Plaintiff's medical “needs” and yelled at Plaintiff. (Id. at 3).

         Plaintiff allegedly made a work accommodation request to Anderson and Calvillo in order to avoid working with chemicals because of Plaintiff's respiratory disability. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff informed Calvillo that he uses “a breathing machine and the chemicals are killing me.” (Id. at 4). Anderson and Cavillo did not follow the “operational procedure” or restrict Plaintiff's exposure to chemicals. (Id. at 4-5).

         Records attached to the Complaint indicate that a physician's assistant[2] evaluated Plaintiff on October 18, 2016. (Id. at 7).[3] The evaluation was conducted because Plaintiff filed a work accommodation request. (Id. at 3-5, 7, 12). After the evaluation, the physician's assistant allegedly informed Plaintiff that he was not disabled because his “activities of daily living” were not limited. (Id. at 7).

         Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and denied Plaintiff's work accommodation request in disregard of his respiratory disability. (Id. at 3-6). Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to provide the “right medical care” and follow the “operational procedure, ” and he requests that the Court “investigate” the alleged “unconstitutional medical care” at CVSP. (Id. at 6).

         III.

...


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.