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.

Bonsall v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 16, 2019

ANTHONY BONSALL, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.

         SCREENING ORDER ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO THIS COURT ISSUING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO A DISTRICT JUDGE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ORDER THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS (ECF NOS. 1 & 7)

         Anthony Bonsall (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 2, 2019. (ECF No. 1).

         The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff now has options as to how to move forward. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint based on the legal standards in this order if he believes that additional facts would state cognizable claim(s). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in due course. Or, Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court that he wishes to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by a district judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent with this order.

         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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5), the Court may also screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         A complaint is required to 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 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. 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). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

         II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff suffers from the Hepatitis C virus. He has had the virus since 2001.

         In November 2017, he requested that Dr. Kongara provide care and treatment for his Hepatitis C condition. Dr. Kongara refused to authorize care and treatment, saying “You are not severe enough for care and treatment.”

         About five months later, Plaintiff asked Dr. Kongara for care, treatment, and fibroscan testing for his Heptatis C condition, and his request was again denied as not being “severe enough.”

         In one interview with Dr. Kongara, Plaintiff stated “Can you please put me in for the medical treatment and test my liver for damage, because I have had Hepatitis C[] since 2001 and I think after 15-years the virus has had to cause harm to my liver. I have learned that a treatment and liver damage testing exists. [I]nmates who have Hepatitis C[] around the same time as me are getting the treatment. They say it is a good program. I am requesting this care, treatment and fibroscan testing please.” Dr. Kongara stated “You look healthy enough. Your condition is not severe enough for Hepatitis-C[] care and treatment. Your request for this treatment and testing is denied.” Plaintiff had this same discussion with Dr. Kongara multiple times. Plaintiff never saw Dr. Kongara write down notes or type in her computer.

         Plaintiff then submitted a series of health care grievances asking for fibroscan for his Hepatitis C. These requests were also denied. One registered nurse told Plaintiff “I see you have Hepatitis-C and you are in our chronic care program, but you are not eligible for fibroscan testing because Dr. Kongara has not ordered your Hepatitis C[] treatment.”

         On November 28, 2018, Chief Physician and Surgeon Dr. U. Baniga responded to Plaintiff's grievance, denying the appeal and stating “you currently have a FiB4 score of 0.84, which does not meet criteria for ordering of fibroscan per CCHCS Hepatitis C Care Guide. You are currently being ...


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.