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.

Ibarra v. Zamora

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 14, 2017

DAVID IBARRA, Plaintiff,
v.
L.D. ZAMORA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff David Ibarra, a state prisoner[1] proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 2, 2017. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case. (ECF No. 6). No other parties have appeared.

         I. Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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).

         II. Pleading Standard

         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)), and 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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 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, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff complains of acts that occurred at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, California, and the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California. Plaintiff brings this action against several Defendants: L.D. Zamora, Chief of Healthcare for the California Department of Corrections; T. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer at KVSP; L. Bluford, health care appeals coordinator at KVSP; Shittu, a doctor at KVSP; D. Longcrier, Chief Support Executive at CCI; Tate, doctor at CCI; and Ross, doctor at CCI. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied him adequate medical care.

         Plaintiff's allegations may be summarized as follows:

         From as early as March 2010, Plaintiff has suffered from severe and excruciating pain in the left side of his neck, torso, and shoulder. He continually complained to Defendants, who reacted with deliberate indifference. They refused him pain medication, proper diagnosis, and treatment. In February 2015, after Plaintiff was transferred to a different institution, doctors there properly diagnosed Plaintiff with a torn left rotator cuff, muscle retraction and severe muscle atrophy which needed reverse shoulder arthroplasty. According to these physicians, the extended period of time without treatment meant that a total shoulder replacement was necessary.

         Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory judgment.

         IV. Discussion

         A. ...


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.