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.

Gaines v. Brown

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 8, 2017

MARY LEE GAINES, Plaintiff,
v.
E.G. BROWN, JR, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MIRELEZ AND HOEHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“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's first amended complaint, filed on September 13, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 17).

         Screening Requirement

         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. § 1915A(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.

         Summary of Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at Central California Women's Facility (“CCWF”). The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at CCWF. Plaintiff names the following defendants: S. Lwin, M.D.; Zaragoza, RN; Ray CNA; R. Mitchell, M.D.; Suedue; K. Miller; T. Boswell, RN; Kane, RN; M. Mirelez, RN; Ririgus CNA; Hotsue, CNA; L. Vance, SRN II; Wurztler; J. Mbeneya, RN; Hoehing, RN; Seretona, CNA; Tylers; Taislyn; and King, CNA. Plaintiff alleges each defendant was medically indifferent to her medical needs. Plaintiff sues each defendant individually and in their official capacity.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows. Each defendant is on the medical staff assigned to CCWF and is responsible for medical treatment and care of inmates. On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff was having an asthma attack and she hit the emergency call light, but Defendant Mbeneya failed to respond and did not respond until 35 minutes later letting Plaintiff suffer breathing problems. On February 11, 2014 at noon, Plaintiff again was having breathing problems and hit the emergency call light, but Defendant Mirelez failed to respond and responded late and in an untimely manner and told Plaintiff that Defendant Mirelez cannot give Plaintiff a breathing treatment. Plaintiff requested her medications but Defendant said that Defendant was not going to give Plaintiff her medications. Later that same day, Plaintiff had another asthma attack and hit the emergency call light but Defendant Mirelez and Hoehing failed to respond and Plaintiff began vomiting. When Defendant Hoehing appeared Plaintiff told Defendant Hoehing Plaintiff had an asthma attack but Defendant just left and did not do anything. In the evening Plaintiff suffered another asthma attack and hit the emergency light again and again began vomiting. Defendant Seretona responded and took Plaintiff's blood pressure. (Doc. 17 ¶26.)

         On February 12, 13, and 14, 2014, Plaintiff had asthma attacks and difficulties breathing and she pushed the emergency call light but Defendant Hoehing, Seretona, Mbenaya, Mirelez, and Tylers failed to respond and allowed Plaintiff to suffer.

         On July 2, 3, and 7, 2014, Plaintiff asked for her medications and for a breathing treatment from defendant Taislyn, Mbeneya, and Seretona who all began verbally abusing and verbally harassing Plaintiff and failed to give her medications or breathing treatment. (Doc. 17 ¶28.)

         On July 7, 2014 at 6:05pm, Plaintiff had breathing problems and asthma attack and hit the emergency call light but Defendants Mbeneya and Seretona failed to respond for an hour. (Doc. 17 ¶38.)

         On February 16, 2015 at 9:30 pm Plaintiff began having breathing problems again and Plaintiff asked Defendant King to tell Defendant Zaragoza that Plaintiff needed a breathing treatment. Defendant King failed to tell Zaragoza or respond and Plaintiff blacked out and lost consciousness and woke up on the floor. Plaintiff screamed for help. (Doc. 17 ¶30.)

         On May 12, 15, 18, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and June 1, 2, 16, 19, 25 and on July 5, 2015, Plaintiff had medical emergencies of breathing difficulties, shortness of breath and gasping for breath and needed breathing treatments and Plaintiff hit the emergency call light each time but Defendants Ririgus, Hotsue, Vance, Kane and Ray did not respond. She hit the door with a cup to get the attention of Defendants and they did ...


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.