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.

Martinez v. D. Davey

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 11, 2017

RICARDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
D. DAVEY, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 37)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         1. Screening Requirement and Standard

         Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 23, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was transferred to this Court on January 15, 2016, and received on January 20, 2016. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff's first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed on December 1, 2016, is currently before the court for screening. (ECF No. 37.)

         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. § 1915(A)(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. Courts are required to liberally construe pro se prisoner complaints. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976).

         2.Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California. The events at issue are alleged to have occurred Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) D. Davey, Warden; (2) A. Enenmoh, M.D., Chief Medical Officer; (3) J. Lewis, [1]M.D., Deputy Director, (4) J. Furtune, M.D., primary care provider, (5) J. Kim, M.D., primary care provider, (6) E. Clark, M.D., primary care provider.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows. He was denied care for his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May 27, 2014, Defendant Furtune denied Plaintiff's request for chest pain medication. On May 25, 2014, Dr. Tao prescribed Motrin and tramadol for severe chest pain. Then Plaintiff was transferred on May 29, 2014 to Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that from August 29, 2014 to September 8, 2014, morphine medication was stopped. Dr. Clark denied severe chest pain medication and treatment for chronic lung disease that required nebulizer therapy. On October 14, 2014, a radiologist recommended a CT scan of his lungs but it was denied until 5/9/16. On January 7, 2015, Dr. Kim denied health care services of an operation for an epididymis and excision of tumor.[2]Plaintiff was also denied multiple recommendations for a CT scan of the abdomen pelvis.

         On December 4, 2015, Dr. Scharffenberg denied a neurosurgeon's recommendation of higher level of care at Stanford Medical Center and for an MRI of the low back for severe pain medication. Plaintiff filed suit for this denial which is pending at Case No. 1:16-1655 BAM. Plaintiff then lists times that he has been denied medical records from third parties and that such denial is pending in Case. No. 1:16-cv- 1658 MJS. On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff was denied health records.

         Plaintiff then recites a list of denials of medical services. Plaintiff was denied a MRI of the cervical spine, physical therapy or tens unit for pain. He was denied follow up appointments with Dr. Ramberg, neurosurgeon, from November 2014 - October 2015. He was denied imaging of the lungs and was denied removal of cataracts. Plaintiff then details each of his appeals regarding his attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies.[3] (Doc. 37, p. 9-11.)

         Plaintiff does not state the relief he seeks.

         III. Deficiencies of Complaint

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         As Plaintiff has been previously informed, Plaintiff's complaint is sparse and relies primarily on attached exhibits, with minimal factual allegations underlying his claims. Plaintiff's allegations mostly focus on summarizing the administrative appeals. Although he claims several different violations of his rights, his ...


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.