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

Washington v. Harrington

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

August 29, 2012, Decided; August 29, 2012, Filed

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00848-MJS (PC)

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE

SCREENING ORDER

I.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2011, Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington, 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.)

On May 25, 2012, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) 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  [*2] is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have 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 FIRST AMENDED 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.

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123103 *; 2012 WL 3763964

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. K. HARRINGTON, et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by, Request denied by Washington v. Harrington, 549 Fed. Appx. 679, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24647 (9th Cir. Cal., Dec. 11, 2013)

Prior History: Washington v. Harrington, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73293 (E.D. Cal., May 24, 2012)

CORE TERMS

deliberate indifference, symptoms, screened, alleges, clinic, cough, serious medical needs, medical care, medication, persisted, flu, worsened, Eighth Amendment, breathing, chronic, asthma, shortness of breath, diagnosed, rights, amend