United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 18)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
James Paul Legare (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September
4, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and
granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff's
first amended complaint, filed on November 4, 2019, is
currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 18.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
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. §§
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).
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.
Allegations in Complaint
is currently housed at the California Institution for Men in
Chino, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to
have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California
Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (“CSATF”)
in Coalinga, California. Plaintiff names the following
defendants: (1) C. Cryer, Chief Executive Officer; (2) S.
Gates, Chief, Health Care Appeals Branch-Sacramento; and (3)
Does 1 through 5, CSATF medical/health care providers.
alleges: On July 2017, after Plaintiff had complained for
months about groin pain, he was prescribed Oxcarbazepine
(“Trileptal”) for pain management. Soon after
taking Trileptal, Plaintiff began to suffer side effects,
such as dizziness, sleeplessness, periodic blurred vision,
confusion, thirst, fatigue and other negative effects.
August 1, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR 7362 request for
medical services complaining about the serious side effects
that Trileptal and requesting that a different pain
medication be prescribed. Plaintiff contends that despite
Defendant Cryer and Doe Defendants possessing knowledge of
Plaintiff's side effects, they were indifferent to
Plaintiff's suffering, taking no action to prevent the
reported condition. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated
departmental health care policies, which in turn caused
Plaintiff to fall and injure himself.
August 15, 2017, Plaintiff claims that he could no longer
endure the side effects and refused to take Trileptal.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Cryer and Doe Defendants,
despite knowing that Plaintiff stopped taking Trileptal, took
no corrective action to prescribe him an alternate pain
management medication. Plaintiff further asserts that this
caused him to languish in 24/7 incessant groin pain that
triggered falls to the ground resulting in physical injury.
Plaintiff alleges that one Doe Defendant further injured
Plaintiff by issuing him a negative CDCR 128B for exercising
his right to refuse the medication causing life threatening
August 6, 2017, Plaintiff asserts that the Board of Parole
Hearings negatively addressed the CDCR 128B record during
Plaintiff's bid for freedom.
August 15, 2017 to September 17, 2017, Defendant Cryer and
Doe Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with care or pain
management to relieve his groin pain. Plaintiff asserts that
the groin pain caused him to fall hard to the ground,
resulting in injury to his person and the ...