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.

Youngblood v. Clark

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 9, 2017

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF APPEAL (ECF NO. 14) SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 8)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this action on November 18, 2015, along with a motion for injunctive and other relief, including seeking a judgment in his favor. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 4, 2015. (ECF No. 8.)

         I. Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal

         On November 3, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for injunctive and other relief because Plaintiff's most-recent amended complaint had not yet been screened to determine if he stated any cognizable claim for relief and no defendant had made an appearance in this action. (ECF Nos. 11, 13.) On November 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Appeal.” (ECF No. 14.) Although the “notice” refers to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and several California Penal Code sections, it does not include any argument or requested form of relief, and the Court cannot ascertain whether Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration by this Court or seeking to appeal a particular ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The purported notice is insufficient to support either request.

         For these reasons, Plaintiff's notice of appeal shall be disregarded. Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 or requesting certification of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). However, any such request must be made in the form of a motion and, more importantly, set forth the basis for the motion, the order to be reconsidered or appealed, and the relief sought.

         II. Screening Requirement and Standard

         Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on December 4, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 8.)

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).

         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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         A. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”), where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Dr. Clark, Dr. Jeffrey Wang, Dr. Wang and John and Jane Does as defendants. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained acute injuries to his back, neck and shoulder while being transferred to R. J. Donovan Prison on December 23, 2010. After arriving at R. J. Donovan, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 602 Form and a Medical Form for a reasonable accommodation seeking medication, a back brace and lower tier chrono from an unknown doctor (“John Doe 1”) at R. J. Donovan. The doctor ordered x-rays and prescribed Tylenol for pain management, but denied the chrono and back brace. A second unknown doctor (“John Doe 2”) at R. J. Donovan prescribed Tylenol and denied the chrono and back brace. Plaintiff allegedly made other requests to a third unknown doctor (“Jane Doe 1”) at R. J. Donovan, who prescribed Tylenol, but no other treatment in 2011/2012, such as a chrono or back brace.

         Upon Plaintiff's arrival at CSP-Corcoran, Plaintiff submitted several forms and exhausted all available levels for relief regarding his treatment plan to no avail in the period from 2012 through 2015. At some point, Dr. Clark approved of Tylenol, but stated that his supervisor would not let him grant a chrono or a back brace from the incident in 2010. Dr. Wang also approved of Tylenol, but further stated that his supervisor would not let him provide Plaintiff with a chrono or back brace. Dr. Wang also reportedly told Plaintiff he could submit a CDCR 602/Medical Form or ADA (1824) Form or take it to court. Dr. Kim also approved of Tylenol, but denied Plaintiff a chrono or back brace as a “necessity in treatment plan/rehabilitation plan.” (ECF No. 8, p. 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that an unknown individual (“John Doe”) took x-rays and showed results.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including a chrono and back brace, along with compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, Plaintiff suggests that he sought relief in “all lower courts, ” including Kings County Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, and the ...


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.