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.

Calderon v. Danials

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 9, 2020

JOSE GUADALUPE CALDERON, Plaintiff,
v.
MAGDY DANIALS, et. al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF NO. 1]

         Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Calderon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on January 6, 2020.

         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

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

         Plaintiff spent five years at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff complained to his primary care provider Doctor Magdy that he was losing mobility and was not able to run, jump or play sports as a normal 25-year-old. Plaintiff also said he was having pain and his energy level was low. Approximately one year later, Doctor Magdy ordered blood test and informed Plaintiff that his condition was “gout.” Doctor Magdy never told why he believed Plaintiff had “gout.” On or about August 13, 2019, Doctor Magdy prescribed Allopurinol for gout, and Plaintiff was advised to stop eating red meat, beans, peanut butter and all kinds of food rich in protein and to drink a lot of water.

         In 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff was seen by Doctor Gamboa who continued to prescribe Allopurinol for gout. Plaintiff informed Doctor Gamboa that his body was shutting down and Plaintiff started to have doubts as to whether he had gout. Plaintiff told Doctor Gamboa that maybe he had something other than gout. Doctor Gamboa ordered more blood test and continued to tell Plaintiff that he had gout because his uric acid was out of range. However, Plaintiff did not have inflammation in his right leg, foot or big toes which are symptoms of gout.

         On or about August 4, 2010, Plaintiff requested to be seen by an outside doctor other than Doctor Gamboa.

         On or about June 8, 2011, Plaintiff's uric acid level was within normal range. Doctor Gamboa now knew that Plaintiff's symptoms were not related to gout, but he ...


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.