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.

Martinez v. Standon

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 23, 2019

RICARDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY STANDON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING THE INSTANT ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF NO. 19]

         Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed September 16, 2019.

         I.

         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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d at 969.

         II.

         COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the first amended complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

         On May 22, 2018, when Plaintiff was on his way to the morning medication pass, officers S. Furlong and D. Dozer approached Plaintiff and conduced a marked “brutal search down.” Plaintiff advised the officers to take it easy on his spinal cord, but they replied that they did not give a “fuck” about Plaintiff’s medical conditions. During the search, Furlong grabbed Plaintiff’s leg arm and applied a lot of pressure on the left side of his neck.

         On July 14, 2018, at the morning medication pass, as Plaintiff was walking to the yard from the patio, an inmate attacked him from behind, hitting him on the left side of the head, left shoulder, and he was kicked when on the ground. Officer Furlong participated in the incident by giving orders to the hit man. Sergeant Stane participated in the incident by destroying Plaintiff’s eyeglasses by breaking the frames. Plaintiff’s legal property was also taken away.

         On June 4, 2018, officer D. Dozer called Plaintiff to the medical clinic where Dozer conducted a “roughshod” search worsening Plaintiff’s lesions and tumors. Although Plaintiff complained of being in pain, Dozer raised Plaintiff’s leg and grabbed the left side of his heck and arm. He continued to bend and twist Plaintiff’s right harms.

         On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff’s primary care physician, Timothy Standon, denied serious medical care. Plaintiff suffers lesions to the head that causes hemorrhage to left ear and irregular flashing headaches. Plaintiff also suffers a major intracerebral flow voids. Plaintiff was denied the recommended evaluation by neurosurgeons at Stanford Medical Center, UCSF, or UCLA. Plaintiff was also denied evaluation by a brain specialist. Plaintiff claims he was denied an MRI of lumbar spine, pain medication and pain management evaluation by the pain committee, diabetes medication, a rescue asthma inhaler, an evaluation for hearing impaired, an operation for a growth of spermatic cord tumor, an operation of a hemorrhoids, incontinence supplies, single cell status, an evaluation for a burning and swollen nose, and prescription eyeglasses.

         On July 21, 2019, Warden C. Pfeiffer and officer Herrera retaliated against Plaintiff and hired a person motivated solely by the pay. On this date, when Plaintiff attempted to go back to his cell from the morning medication pass, an inmate attacked him from behind and stabbed Plaintiff in the forehead, left, arm, and punched his left shoulder and mouth causing the loss of several teeth. Notice of the incident was provided to C. Pfeiffer.

         On July 21, 2019, after Plaintiff attempted to go back to his cell after morning medication pass, an inmate attacked him from behind his wheelchair and stabbed Plaintiff in the forehead and left arm. The inmate then punched his left shoulder and mouth cutting both lips and causing him to lose two teeth.

         III.

...


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.