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.

Henson v. Federal Bureau of Narcotics

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 22, 2018

ERICK D. HENSON, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 28.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

          GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         Erick D. Henson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 17.)

         On September 27, 2017, the court screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.) On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 26.) On November 6, 2017, the court screened the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed it for violation of Local Rule 220, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 27.) On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 28.)

         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).

         A complaint is required to 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)). 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 state a viable claim, 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

         III. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. The events at issue in the Third Amended Complaint allegedly occurred in Bakersfield, California, before and after Plaintiff's confinement at the Lerdo Pre- trial Facility, in the custody of the Kern County Sheriff. Plaintiff names as defendants the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Sagebrush Clinic Pharmacy.

         Plaintiff's allegations follow.

         Plaintiff alleges that at an undisclosed time he entered into an agreement pursuant to 830, 803.5, which relates to Defendants. On or about October 13, 2015, Plaintiff was pursuing normal activities when he sustained a mutual combat 10/8 wound such as a broken arm and bruised extremities, etc. Authorities were called, and Kern County Officer James Dillon arrived. Officer Dillon should have assessed injuries and called for EMT if needed, but he failed to do so. Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs but was not given medical care, although it was obvious that injuries were sustained and were noted. Without treatment for months, Plaintiff's limb became deformed.

         Plaintiff alleges that his injuries and medical care were related to the procedure used for investigative purposes under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23, used by the Sagebrush Clinic Pharmacy. Plaintiff has documented injuries which were untreated until he developed a permanent left arm deformity. The investigation practice violates Plaintiff's authorized permission to “utilize such tool pursuant to my action listed with the courts, in doing so, violates medical privacy laws.” (ECF No. 28 at 4 ¶2.) Plaintiff alleges that “being housed at and treated with a disability and/or impairment problem under Armstrong Remedial Plan II is actually used as a private punishment from such defendants and/or entity which has led to much emotional distress from extended periods of confinement.” (Id. at 5 ¶2.) Plaintiff seeks to be “free from eavesdropping, recording and/or [continuous monitoring] to shame, embarrass, or humiliate such persons.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated, “causing severe abdominal pain with no assistance whatsoever to fix the problem.” (Id.)

         Plaintiff requests injunctive relief only.

         IV. ...


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.