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.

Bolen v. Sherman

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 2, 2018

MARK A. BOLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
STEWART SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Mark A. Bolen (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on October 2, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         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); 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 (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 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Warden Stewart Sherman; and (2) Dr. Winafred Kokor.

         Claim 1

         In Claim 1, Plaintiff asserts a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and alleges as follows:

Due to Dr Kokors removal of my DNM (ADA) status and lower tier lower bunk chrono's and interferance in the 602/ADA 1824 Appeals Process I have continually been injured during these last 3 years. Dr Kokor knows my medical history prior to prison (military) and chooses not to treat me fully. By ordering braces, medication, and x rays he acknowledges the medical need and the problem but still refuses to give back the ADA status and L/L chrono's.

(ECF No. 1 at 3) (unedited text). Plaintiff asserts that his right knee was injured and he now has to wear a metal-hinged knee brace on both legs. Recent x-rays of his mid to lower back also showed 6 vertebrae are fractured and he has a possible bone spur. (Id.)

         Claim II

         In Claim II, Plaintiff asserts a violation of the First Amendment and alleges as follows:

While 602ing preparing the lawsuite (15W-0148A) Dr Kokor began removing my ADA status and L/L chrono's. Once I filed the writ he finished removing all chrono's from the computers. Since then he refuses to give the L/L chrono's back or ADA status and even interfeared in the 1824 ...

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.