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.

Cunha v. California Forensic Medical Group

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 15, 2017

JAMES ALFRED CUNHA, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL (ECF No. 11) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 12) ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 10) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's civil rights complaint and found it stated no cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in the action.

         On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted two additional filings: a request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) and a motion for a twenty-one day extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 12). Both filings are addressed herein.

         I. Motion for Counsel

         The Court explained in its prior screening order that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff's renewed motion for counsel does not present any new grounds or show exceptional circumstances. His request will be denied, albeit without prejudice.

         II. Request for Extension of Time

         On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a twenty-one day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Therein, Plaintiff requested a twenty-one day extension from the date of May 8, 2017 to file additional documentation in support of his first amended complaint.

         As explained in further detail below, Plaintiff's claims are considered on the basis of his complaint alone and need not refer to outside documentation. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for an extension will be denied.

         III. Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates 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).

         IV. 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.

         Prisoners may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting “under color of state law.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii). Under § 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.

         V. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff's claims stem from his incarceration in the Stanislaus County Jail in Modesto, California. He brings this action against the California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”); the Stanislaus County Jail (“the Jail”); the General Service Agency (“GSA”); Lt. Mike Dailey; Sgt. Chad Blake; retired Sgt. Vince Truffa; Nurse Barbara; Practitioner Tonya; Nurse Joe C., and Practitioner Sunny Bassi.

         His allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:

         A. Cause of Leg Injury

         Plaintiff was assigned to jail operations by Defendants Truffa, Dailey, and Blake. He was responsible for refurbishment, upkeep, and maintenance in and around the Jail. ...


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.