United States District Court, E.D. California
GUILLERMO G. PAEZ, JR., Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH, INC. Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
NO. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. His February 27, 2017 complaint is before
the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented
to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other
parties have appeared.
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 on 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 on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 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 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda County,
811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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)). A
plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
Iqbal, at 677-78.
is currently detained in Fresno County Jail, where the acts
giving rise to his complaint occurred. Accordingly, the Court
proceeds on the presumption that he is a pretrial
detainee. He brings this suit against Corizon Health
Plaintiff's allegations may be summarized essentially as
was hospitalized at Community Regional Medical Center
(“CRMC”) in Fresno, California before being
transferred to Fresno County Jail on December 22, 2016. While
at CRMC, Plaintiff underwent surgery on his right arm to
remove “muscle and skin tissue.” This surgery was
necessary to treat a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (“MRSA”) infection caused by a
surgeon who used a “dirty/medical instrument”
while performing a prior operation. The second surgery (to
treat Plaintiff's MRSA infection) resulted in an open
wound that “hasn't closed.” Plaintiff was
seen at CRMC for post-surgery follow up after the second
operation, where providers “monitored the open
wound.” Plaintiff was told to continue follow up until
the wound closed, was prescribed antibiotics “for only
7 days, ” and was treated with “daily
wrappings” until January 29, 2017. “Within the
following week, ” Plaintiff's open wound
“blistered up with puss” and became infected.
Plaintiff was prescribed antibiotics again along with daily
wrappings, this time until March 1, 2017. Plaintiff requested
a skin graft to address the open wound, but “jail
medical staff, ” presumably Corizon employees, canceled
his last appointment with the “orthopedic/burn
unit” at CRMC, telling Plaintiff that he
“didn't need medical treatment.”
suffers “pain from irreparable nerve damage”
resulting from the second surgery performed to treat his MRSA
infection. Plaintiff alleges this pain causes
“uncomfortable day to day living.” Plaintiff also
alleges that this constitutes “cruel and unusual
punishment” on his “body and mind, ”
resulting in disability and leaving him “emotional[ly]
discourage[d].” Plaintiff's wound “still
[has] leakage of puss, ” and Corizon
“still” refuses to acknowledge Plaintiff's
MRSA infection and the pain resulting from it.
seeks injunctive relief, asking the Court to “be taken
to outside hospital for proper treatment, ” including
“skin grafting and therapy” for his right arm.
brings this civil rights claim against Corizon Health.
Plaintiff alleges that Corizon medical staff's refusal to
provide further medical treatment for his right arm, which
had previously been infected with MRSA, constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. Plaintiff also brings a claim for
inadequate medical care. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief,
asking the Court to order “proper treatment.” The
Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's claims with leave to
amend and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's request
for injunctive relief.