Bontemps v. Sotak et al
Filing
25
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 01/04/12 ORDERING that service is appropriate for defendants Smith and Sotak. Clerk shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the 24 10/13/11 Fourth Amended Complaint; within 30 days, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed documents and three copies of the endorsed fourth amended co mplaint. IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants Cannon, Tidwell, and Slayball be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted Objections to these F&Rs due within 20 days; case referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. CIV S-09-2115 LKK EFB P
SOTAK, et al.,
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
14
/
15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
16
17
U.S.C. § 1983. This case was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(17), pursuant
18
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s fourth amended
19
complaint, filed after three dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in
20
21
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
22
governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable
23
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,
24
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief
25
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
26
////
1
1
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A
2
screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment for
3
alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs as to defendants Smith and Sotak. However, the
4
complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendants Cannon, Tidwell, or Slayball.
5
The complaint alleges that Cannon and Tidwell transferred plaintiff between county facilities,
6
and “messed up” paperwork. The complaint also alleges that Slayball moved plaintiff to a
7
different floor, as a “safety issue.”
8
To state a section 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate
9
medical care, plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate
10
indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To prevail,
11
plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were objectively serious, and that defendant
12
possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-99 (1991);
13
McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir. 1992). Deliberate indifference may be
14
shown by the denial, delay or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in
15
which medical care is provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).
16
To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from which the
17
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
18
inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
19
The allegations against defendants Cannon, Tidwell, and Slayball fail under these
20
standards, and therefore, these defendants should be dismissed. Plaintiff has had several
21
opportunities to amend and appears unable to allege a cognizable claim for relief against these
22
defendants. See Dckt. Nos. 9, 16, 19, 22. Therefore, the court will recommend that defendants
23
Cannon, Tidwell, and Slayball be dismissed from this action. See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d
24
494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to
25
amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the
26
allegation of other facts.”).
2
1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
2
1. Service is appropriate for defendants Smith and Sotak.
3
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons, an
4
instruction sheet and one copy of the October 13, 2011 fourth amended complaint.
5
3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice
6
of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM-
7
285 forms and three copies of the endorsed October 13, 2011 fourth amended complaint.
8
4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States
9
Marshal to serve defendants Smith and Sotak pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4
10
without payment of costs. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that
11
this action be dismissed.
12
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants Cannon, Tidwell, and Slayball be
13
dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
14
granted.
15
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
16
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days
17
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
18
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
19
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
20
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
21
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
Dated: January 4, 2012.
23
24
25
26
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. CIV S-09-2115 LKK EFB P
SOTAK, et al.,
Defendants.
14
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
/
15
16
Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order
17
18
:
filed
19
1
completed summons form
20
2
completed forms USM-285
21
3
copies of the October 13, 2011 Fourth Amended Complaint
22
Dated:
23
Plaintiff
24
25
26
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?