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.

Brothers v. Buenafe

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 13, 2017

AUBREY LEE BROTHERS II, Plaintiff,
v.
CHITA BUENAFE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case. (ECF No. 5). No other parties have appeared.

         I. Screening Requirement

         The 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 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).

         II. 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.

         Under section 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.

         III. Plaintiffs Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California ("CSP-LAC"), however he complains of acts that occurred at the California State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California ("CSP-COR"). Plaintiff brings this action against three Defendants: Dr. Chita Buenafe, a dentist; N. Flores, a dental assistant; and T. Hood, a correctional officer, for violation of his . Plaintiff First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

         Plaintiff alleges:

         On March 10, 2014, Dr. Buenafe and N. Flores implanted electrodes into his brain through a filling in his tooth. Dr. Buenafe told Plaintiff that he was "crazy" and the implant was necessary to control him. Since then, Plaintiff has suffered headaches and strange vibrations, movements and severe pain in his brain. His repeated requests for medical attention regarding the implant and his symptoms have been denied. Eventually, Plaintiff underwent an MRI which supposedly showed signs of a healed cranial fracture even though Plaintiff has never had a cranial fracture. The doctors falsely reported the fracture to cover up implantation of the electrodes. The implanted electrodes are being used to cause Plaintiff pain and control him.

         Plaintiff alleges further that Officer Hood falsely charged Plaintiff with an RVR in retaliation for Plaintiffs complaints about the electrodes.

         Finally, Plaintiff alleges prison officials threatened to kill him via electric shocks to his brain and also threatened to harm his family.

         Plaintiff attaches sheaves of documents to his complaint, including appeals records and medical records. He seeks ...


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.