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.

Scott v. Beregovskay

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 6, 2017

TIANTE DION SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
BEREGOVSKAY, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 8(a), WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT EXCEEDING 25 PAGES ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM

          GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Tiante Dion Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On August 24, 2017, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 6.)

         Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the court for screening.

         II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         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 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).

         III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California. The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at North Kern State Prison in Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants Olga Beregovskay, M.D.; A Shittu, M.D.; Ndukwe N. Odeluga, M.D.; J. Lewis (Deputy Director, Policy and Risk Management Services for California Correctional Health Care Services); R. Robles, M.D.; L. Krzysiak, M.D., S.H. Banayan, M.D.; D. Gines, M.D.; Karen Jose, LVN; T. Guhl, RN; Gabriel, RN; C. Agbasi, LVN; Armendarez, RN; Oyeniyi, LVN; and S. Garza, SRN II (collectively, “Defendants”).

         Plaintiff's Complaint is 80 pages in length, with an additional 137 pages of attached exhibits. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

         IV. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights, ' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent that the violation of a state law ...


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.