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.

Zambrano v. Golding

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 27, 2019

JUAN CARLOS ZAMBRANO, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC GOLDING, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF SERVICE

          HAWOOD S GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that PBSP correctional officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His amended complaint (Dkt. No. 15) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         B. Complaint

         According to the amended complaint, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right knee and the side of his right leg and was transferred to the Triage and Treatment Area (“TTA”). Dkt. No. 15. (“Am. Compl.”) at 3. He repeatedly requested medical attention for his injured leg, but RN Amy Olsen, PA Laurie Thomas, RN Jasmine Yang, and Dr. Elise Williams refused to examine his leg, and refused to obtain medical assistance for Plaintiff. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff was admitted to the TTA upon his request, but RN Yang and Dr. Williams still refused to examine his injury. Id. at 4. Plaintiff repeatedly pushed his emergency light button. CNA Kathrine Blakeley, RN John Kim, and RN Rhoda Nasr responded to the emergency button but refused to provide any help. Id. The next day, July 28, 2018, RN Yang and Dr. Williams discharged Plaintiff with recommendations for stress management, claiming that his pain was from stress. When Plaintiff reviewed his medical records months later, Plaintiff learned that PA Thomas and Dr. Williams wrote that Plaintiff claimed to be injured because he feared for his safety on the yard and was admitted for his protection. Plaintiff states that the stated reason for admittance is false. Id.at 4.

         Back at his yard, Plaintiff repeatedly put in sick call slips to obtain medical treatment for his leg injury. PA Devinder Kumar and RN Eric Golding ignored him, refused to see him, minimized his pain, and harassed him for seeking medical treatment. Am. Compl. at 5-6.

         On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff had an MRI and learned that he had a torn medial meniscus. PA Kumar read the MRI that day and described the tear as just a small tear. On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff had surgery to repair the meniscus. The surgeon stated that the meniscus was completely torn. When other inmates have been seen by PA Kumar for sports injuries, PA Kumar has offered them MRIs and given them medical equipment on site, and, if needed, ensured that they received surgery within two months of the injury. However, PA Kumar did not provide Plaintiff with medical equipment for over six months, forcing him to walk with an injured leg without equipment. Plaintiff currently requires additional surgery because of the defendants' failure to provide him with medical treatment. Am. Compl. at 6.

         Liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegation that RN Amy Olsen, PA Laurie Thomas, RN Jasmine Yang, Dr. Elise Williams, CNA Kathrine Blakeley, RN John Kim, RN Rhoda Nasr, PA Devinder Kumar and RN Eric Golding refused to provide him with medical treatment for his torn meniscus states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to a ...


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.