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.

Rives v. Matevousian

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 17, 2017

SHAWN LEE RIVES, Plaintiff,
v.
MATEVOUSIAN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 1)

         Plaintiff Shawn Lee Rives is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed March 9, 2017.

         I.

         SCREENING

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 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 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II.

         COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff is a federal prisoner and is currently housed at the Coleman I Penitentiary. Prior to be taken into custody, Plaintiff had been diagnosed with a slipped disk and folliculitis (an inflammatory condition which may be disfiguring). (Compl. 3.[1]) Plaintiff had an MRI about October 3, 2002, which confirmed a serious spinal cord injury and suffers from continued back pain. (Compl. 3-4.)

         Around February 26, 2017, when Plaintiff was taken into the custody of the United States, he was housed at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater. (Compl. 1, 2-3.) Between February 26, 2017, through March 3, 2017, Plaintiff requested medical treatment more than thirty times. (Compl. 3.) Medical staff has consistently refused to provide Plaintiff with proper medical care. (Compl. 3.) The warden has refused to instruct medical staff to provide Plaintiff with proper medical care and all Federal Bureau of Prison (“FBOP”) personnel have refused to ensure that Plaintiff receives proper medical care. (Compl. 3.) FBOP personnel have consistently refused to obtain Plaintiff's prior medical records which include the 2002 MRI. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff is required to walk unaided on concrete to and from the dining hall, school, etc. resulting in pain. (Compl. 4.)

         Plaintiff brings this action against Warden Matevousian, Dr. Moore, unidentified FBOP staff and unidentified USP Atwater staff alleging violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Compl. 5-6.) Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that his rights have been violated, permanent injunctive relief, and monetary damages. (Compl. 6.)

         For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to allege any cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that apply to his claim and will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in his complaint.

         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.