Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Fraher v. Heyne

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

October 31, 2011, Decided; October 31, 2011, Filed

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00951-MJS (PC)

Opinion

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF HER DESIRE TO PROCEED ONLY ON HER COGNIZABLE CLAIM

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff Cecilia Fraher, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

II. 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, malicious," or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have  [*2] been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508, 110 S. Ct. 2510, 110 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125581 *; 2011 WL 5240441

CECILIA FRAHER, Plaintiff, v. DR. S. HEYNE, et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Complaint dismissed at Fraher v. Heyne, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149422 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2011)

CORE TERMS

alleges, infection, deliberate indifference, amended complaint, Eighth Amendment, rights, appeals, medical care, medical need

Civil Procedure, Parties, Prisoners, Dismissal of Petitions, Civil Rights Law, Prisoner Rights, Prison Litigation Reform Act, Claim Dismissals, Screening of Petitions, Judicial Screening, Protection of Rights, Section 1983 Actions, Scope, Elements, General Overview, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Medical Treatment, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Litigation, Actions Against Healthcare Workers, Prison Officials & Physicians, Scope, Law Enforcement Officials, Prison Officials, Actions Against Facilities, Facility Liability, Prisons, Medical Treatment, Failures & Refusals to Treat, Prisoners, Causal Relationship, Immunity From Liability, Local Officials, Direct Causal Links, Respondeat Superior Distinguished