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.

Cortinas v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 19, 2019

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Plaintiff,
v.
McDONALD, Defendant.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS (ECF Nos. 1, 9, 10)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         On December 4, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant McDonald for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claim. (ECF No. 9.) On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claim against Defendant McDonald identified by the Court. (ECF No. 10.)

         II. 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)(1), (2).

         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 Atl. 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.

         III. Allegations in Complaint

         Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff names Defendant McDonald as the sole defendant and alleges as follows:

MARCH 17, 2018 I was inside california state prison Corcoran hospital. I suffered a black out from my heart condiction. Correctional Officer Mc Donald was allow with me in the hospital room. He was asking me Questions which I would not answer. So he [Mc Donald] grabed my handcuffed to the hospital bed right hand. Mc Donald SQUEEZED my hand until the bones broke. I had surgery upon the hand to set the bones with pins. Mc Donald used this force to punish me for not responding to his questions. NO INCIDENT REPORT was filed No. rule violation occured., A use of force video was made. The medical records have my statement that Mc Donald broke my hand intentionally. Mc Donald did not deny breaking my hand. This punishment for not answering Mc Donalds Questions inflicted alot of pain upon me.

(ECF No. 1 at 4-5) (unedited text). As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

         IV. Discussion

         A. Eighth Amendment ...


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.