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.

Hill v. Pfeifer

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 18, 2019

TAFT L. HILL, Plaintiff,
v.
C. PFEIFER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 9]

         Plaintiff Taft L. Hill 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 first amended complaint, filed October 9, 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 “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek[] 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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff received a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine, with instructions on how to use and clean the appliance.

         On November 20, 2016, Plaintiff received the following CPAP maintenance supplies and education worksheet: (1) one-galloon plastic jug for distilled water; (2) one-gallon plastic jug of water/vinegar solution; and (3) one-plastic baggie of mild liquid soap 1 for 1 exchange.

         On January 1, 2018, the reasonable accommodation panel, which consisted of Defendants S. Rimbach, S. Lopez, K. Carter, and B. Kemp advised Plaintiff that there was no medical indication for him to receive distilled water or soap for his CPAP machine. However, Plaintiff received distilled water on August 24, 2018.

         On December 10, 2018, Defendant K. Brown, told Plaintiff to clean the CPAP daily with drinkable water and allow to air dry.

         From December 19, 2017 to June 19, 2019, Kern Valley State Prison has never provided Plaintiff with the appropriate supplies to sterilize the CPAP machine or equipment.

         Plaintiff suffers from nasal infections, pain and pressure, difficulty breathing, and sleep deprivation.

         Plaintiff requests $300, 000 in damages.

         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.