Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Perez v. Corizon Health

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 7, 2017

SYLVIA PEREZ, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH, et al., Defendants.



         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 5). No other parties have appeared in the action.

         Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No.1) is before the Court for screening.

         I. 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, malicious, ” or 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)). Plaintiffs 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. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

         Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

         Under section 1983 the 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. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is serving a three year sentence in the Fresno County Jail, where the acts giving rise to her complaint arose. Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Corizon Health, (2) Fresno County Jail, (3) Doe 1, Fresno County Sheriff, and (4) Doe 2, Correctional Officer.

         Plaintiff's complaints are numerous and diverse, but can be fairly summarized as follows:

         Plaintiff suffers from several medical conditions that have not been properly treated.

         Her requests for medication for pain from a miscarriage or abortion have been refused.

         She advised a nurse that she might have blood clots, and was given aspirin as a blood thinner. As a result, she began hemorrhaging, lost consciousness due to low blood pressure, and hit her head. She was not tested to see if she had a head injury.

         She was denied follow up after an April 2016 medical test indicated a mass, possibly cancer, in her left kidney.

         Defendants denied pain medication and other treatment only to save costs. Instead of treatment, Plaintiff was put into lock down.

         Plaintiff also has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and a May 2017 court order that she receive medication for it. She was told she would receive her PTSD medication in two weeks, but it has been two months. She has yet to see a psychiatrist.

         Plaintiff also raises sanitation concerns. She was promised clean clothing, hazard bags, and Depends for her bleeding, but has been provided none of them.

         Plaintiff could not climb into her top bunk because of the miscarriage, and so took her cell mate's bottom bunk. This led to a fight with the roommate, several broken teeth and swallowing of Plaintiff's partial dental plate. Instead of medical care, Plaintiff was told she would eventually “poop it out.” Plaintiff felt humiliated.

         Defendants refuse to sign plaintiff's grievances and instead rip them up. Inmates do ...

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.