Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111121_0001903.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-20 01:56:42
Document Index: 305439503

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Marvin K. Locke, Cdcr #T-74574 v. Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2; George A. Neotti; Matthew Cate; John Doe 3
Marvin K. Locke, Cdcr #T-74574 v. Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2; George A. Neotti; Matthew Cate; John Doe 3
MARVIN K. LOCKE, CDCR #T-74574 PLAINTIFF,v.JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; GEORGE A. NEOTTI; MATTHEW CATE; JOHN DOE 3, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)
On April 8, 2011, Marvin Locke ("Plaintiff"), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility located in San Diego, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On August 15, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Aug. 15, 2011 Order at 7. However, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On September 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act's amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).
B. Waiver of Defendants
In the Court's previous Order, Plaintiff was informed that any Defendants not renamed or claims not re-alleged in his Amended Complaint would be deemed to have been waived. See Aug. 15, 2011 Order at 7 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Plaintiff has filed his First Amended Complaint but he no longer names George Neotti or Matthew Cate as Defendants. See FAC at 1-2. Thus, Defendants Neotti and Cate are DISMISSED from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these Defendants from the docket.
Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants failed to provide immediate medical care to his serious medical needs. See FAC at 3-5. In order to assert a claim for inadequate medical care, Plaintiff must allege facts which are sufficient to show that each person sued was "deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Prison officials must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to Plaintiff's pain or medical needs; neither an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, nor mere negligence or medical malpractice constitutes a constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06.