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.

Taylor v. Mimms

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 11, 2019

SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
MIMMS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS OLIVEIRA AND GALVIZ ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 17)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on August 14, 2019, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 17.)

         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).

         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 California State Prison at Sacramento and alleges the events in the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Dr. Mims, Mental Health Physician, [1] (2) Dr. Kyle, Mental Health Physician, (3) Beer, Correctional Sergeant, (4) Oliveira, Correctional Counselor, (5) Galviz, Correctional Counselor.

         In Claim I, Plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious mental health and medical needs. In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights.

         Plaintiff's specific allegations are as follows: Plaintiff arrived from Kern Valley State Prison on June 15, 2018 and had been on suicide watch. Plaintiff has a long history of serious mental health problems. Mental Health personnel do not believe people who verbally express depression or suicidal ideations. Plaintiff believes Mental Health staff do not care. He referred to Exh. A-3 which is a partial diagnosis of Plaintiff's conditions expressing his violent tendencies and the need for involuntary medication. Plaintiff alleges he relives trauma due to a hurtful childhood, family issues, and job loss. Plaintiff alleges that staff had 10 days to transfer Plaintiff to the hospital or raise his level of mental health. A checklist had to be completed and a follow up plan developed. (EXF No. 17, Exh. A-4 p.3.) Dr. Mims used vindictiveness and bias for discharging an inmate from suicide watch on personal vendettas or beliefs.

         Plaintiff then alleges a “violent transfer” June 15, 2018 incident with custody where he was being moved and was injured in his right arm and he was denied waist restraints. He alleges that he was denied waist restraints by Mental Health.

         Dr. Mims was unprofessional, biased and hateful in her notes about Plaintiff's mental disorder. Dr. Mims said Plaintiff is likely to die in prison before any opportunity for release and she wished death upon Plaintiff. Dr. Kyle knew Plaintiff was being discharged while still being suicidal. Dr. Kyle acted in unison with the deliberate indifference. Plaintiff that talks about his underlying case involving his mental breakdown and the events of that case, which do not appear to be relevant to Plaintiff's allegations.

         Plaintiff complains that Dr. Mims and Dr. Kyle do not review mental history and go back to years prior to see when an inmate's troubles started. This is negligence. They basically called Plaintiff a fake and discharged Plaintiff from the crisis unit while being aware of his continued suicidal ideations.

         Plaintiff alleges Defendant Beer used unprofessional, unlawful, derogatory threats towards Plaintiff on August 7, 2018. Defendant Beer made physical threats against Plaintiff and threatened a beating. Plaintiff submitted on August 9, 2018 an emergency appeal of Defendant Beer's actions and threats. Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant Beer stopped or delayed the responses to his 602s.

         Plaintiff states that he will “remove” from the complaint Defendants Oliveira and Galviz. (ECF No. 17 p.10 (“I'll let the court please extract and remove the two defendants named above [Oliveira and Galviz] from this complaint altogether.”)

         Plaintiff alleges Dr. Mims came to his door for the first time and introduced herself and asked Plaintiff if he would like to come out and speak. Plaintiff gave reasons for his refusals, including his injury and not getting waist restraints. When Dr. Mims came back to talk to him, she told him she had called his prior prison he had just transferred from and the clinician there said Plaintiff was not coming out to talk there either. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mims asked Plaintiff to allow Dr. Mims to watch him masturbate so she could send him to an outside hospital. Plaintiff knew it was a set up so he would get a violation report for indecent exposure.

         Plaintiff attempted suicide on two occasions in April 2019 while at Corcoran. Plaintiff should not have been discharged from the mental health crisis unit because they were aware that Plaintiff was feeling suicidal. Plaintiff received a rules violation for a retaliatory cell extraction on April 12, 2019 as an adverse effect.

         On July 31, 2019, at CSP Sacramento, Plaintiff's television, CD player and other property were replaced do to John Doe unknown officer destroying and sealing plaintiff's property on April 12, 2019.

         Plaintiff seeks as injunctive relief as follows: place a staff separation alert upon all defendants disallowing Plaintiff to be near or around any of the defendants. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         III.Discussion

         Plaintiff's complaint is lengthy, disjointed, repetitive and difficult to understand. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim.

         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). 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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.

         Plaintiff's complaint is not short. It consists of 14 densely packed handwritten pages of rambling and disjointed allegations. The amended complaint is less clear of the allegations Plaintiff contends violated his constitutional rights than was his original complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint is not a short statement of the facts which comprise his ...


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.