Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120920_0012843.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 09:03:09
Document Index: 123809438

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Timothy M. Peavy v. Rohlfing
TIMOTHY M. PEAVY, PLAINTIFF,v.ROHLFING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This case, filed on August 3, 2012, was transferred in from the Northern District to this court on August 9, 2012.
By order, filed on August 23, 2012, plaintiff was directed to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 27, 2012, plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
The complaint states a colorable claim for relief for inadequate medical care for serious medical conditions against defendants Dr. Rohlfing and Dr. Abdur-Rahman, as well as, but in his official capacity only (injunctive relief), Dr. L.D. Zamora, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
However, to the extent plaintiff intends to sue High Desert State Prison for his claims that he has not received treatment for his Hepatitus C infection or for his chronic pain as a result of spinal fractures and arthritis, plaintiff is informed that the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against High Desert State Prison are frivolous and must be dismissed.
As to defendant Dr. Bonnie Lee, plaintiff's only reference to her is that she granted his appeal at the informal level. As to defendants Dr. Lee and Dr. D. Swingle and Dr. L.
D. Zamora, plaintiff has failed to link these individuals to any act or omission that he contends violated his constitutional rights. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
To the extent that plaintiff intended to allege a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care with respect to defendants Lee, Swingle and Zamora, plaintiff must allege "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). The requisite state of mind for a medical claim is "deliberate indifference." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992).
FN4. In a recent case, we recognized that "deliberate indifference to medical needs may be shown by circumstantial evidence when the facts are sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of a risk of harm." Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 421 (9th Cir.2003) (citations omitted); see also Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1197 (acknowledging that a plaintiff may demonstrate that officers "must have known" of a risk of harm by showing the obvious and extreme nature of a detainee's abnormal behavior). []
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff seeks both money damages and injunctive relief. Defendants Lee and Swingle will be dismissed altogether and defendant Zamora will be dismissed in his individual capacity only. Defendant Zamora, Chief of the Correctional Health Care Services, suffices to be an official who could appropriately respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued. Harrington v. Grayson, 764 F. Supp. 464, 475-477 (E.D. Mich. 1991); Malik v. Tanner, 697 F. Supp. 1294, 1304 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). ("Furthermore, a claim for injunctive relief, as opposed to monetary relief, may be made on a theory of respondeat superior in a § 1983 action."); Fox Valley Reproductive Health Care v. Arft, 454 F. Supp. 784, 786 (E.D. Wis. 1978).
3. Plaintiff's claims against defendants High Desert State Prison (HDSP), Lee and Swingle are dismissed altogether as are plaintiff's claims against defendant Zamora in his individual capacity for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that defendants HDSP, Lee and Swingle and defendant Zamora, in his individual capacity, be dismissed from this action.
GGH:009 peav2092.b1