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.

Jones v. Schwarzenegger

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 21, 2017

EDWARD DAVID JONES, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION (ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Findings and Recommendations

         Plaintiff Edward David Jones, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action on April 4, 2016. On October 28, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 23.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 9, 2016, along with a supplement to his amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 29, 31.) On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed an additional supplement to his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint is currently before the Court for screening.[1]

          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 California State Prison, Solano. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred primarily while Plaintiff was housed at California State Prison, Corcoran (“Corcoran”). Plaintiff names the following defendants: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former Governor of the State of California; Susan Hubbard, Warden at Corcoran; Correctional Counselor King, Chief Medical Doctor Dwight Winslow, Does 1 through 20, Chief Medical Officer Jeffery Wang, Dr. Agnes Wu, Dr. Huu Nguyen, Dr. Julian Kim, and RN Does.

         Plaintiff's second amended complaint (including his supplemental complaint) totals more than 180 pages. As best as can be determined from the disjointed nature of his allegations, Plaintiff appears to allege that while housed within high risk areas in Kings County, including Corcoran, he was exposed to Valley Fever. However, he was not informed of potential dangers, health risks and likelihood of contracting the disease. Plaintiff contends that between January 2008 and December 2010, he contracted Valley Fever while at Corcoran.[2] Plaintiff alleges that various defendants denied him fair and adequate treatment for his condition.

         In his supplemental second amended complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that on November 28, 2010, his mother, Geneva Jones, visited Plaintiff at Corcoran and entered areas classified as high risk. Plaintiff contends that CDCR failed to post medical advertisements warning of the high risk areas. Twenty-four (24) hours after the visit, Ms. Jones required emergency medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Jones unknowingly contracted Valley Fever. On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff contends that Ms. Jones died of injuries consistent with Valley Fever.

         Discussion

          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). As noted above, 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). 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 Two ...


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.