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.

Crisp v. California Health Care Facility

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 30, 2018

OBIE L. CRISP, III, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and failed to provide him with adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is plaintiff's third amended complaint for screening.

         I. Background

         The magistrate judge previously assigned to the case dismissed plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 22) and a second amended complaint (ECF No. 28). Upon screening plaintiff's second amended complaint the undersigned found plaintiff failed to state a claim and granted plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff has now filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 35.)

         II. Screening Standard

         The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners[1] seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

         A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 122728 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

         Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more that “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

         III. Screening Analysis

         1. Allegations in the Complaint

         Plaintiff's third amended complaint contains allegations regarding defendants' failure to provide him with clean clothing in the correct size, failure to accommodate his need for daily showers, and failure to assist him with activities of daily living in a timely manner.

         Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”); (2) Warden Brian Duffy; (3) Warden R.J. Rackley; (4) Chief Executive Officer Jackie Clark; (5) Senior Registered Nurse (“SRN”) S. Hardy; (6) SRN Robles; (7) SRN Crickeet; (8) Dr. Nasir; (9) Laundry Supervisor D. Greenwood; (10) Registered Nurse Islas; (11) Certified Nurse's Assistant (“CNA”) K. Johnson; (12) CNA C. Frye; and (13) CME Adams.

         2. Discussion

         The third amended complaint, like the two previously screened, contains lengthy narratives. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the court to determine the claims plaintiff is attempting to assert and against whom he is asserting his various claims. Thus, the court is unable to conduct the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, because ...


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.