Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McNeal v. Florence Correctional Center

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 7, 2014

Troy Terrell McNeal, Plaintiff,
v.
Florence Correctional Center, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff Troy Terrell McNeal, who is confined in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In a February 13, 2013 Order, United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck transferred the case to this Court because Plaintiff had filed the case in the wrong district.

In a June 10, 2013 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not paid the $350.00 civil action filing fee or filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed.

On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time and a Motion to Amend Civil Complaint. On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 4, 2013 Order, the Court granted the Motion for Extension of Time, the Motion to Amend, and the Application to Proceed, and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Extension of Time, which the Court granted in a November 20, 2013 Order. On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a December 31, 2013 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). The Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and this action.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, 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).

A pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is]... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff's specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other "more likely explanations" for a defendant's conduct. Id. at 681.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must "continue to construe pro se filings liberally." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A "complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ( per curiam )).

II. Second Amended Complaint

In his three-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), CCA's Florence Correctional Center (CCA-FCC), and Dentist Jane Doe.

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to "[n]egligence under deliberate indifference under Eight[h] Amendment" regarding his dental care. Plaintiff asserts that he is a State of California inmate that was sent to CCA-FCC, received a dental checkup at CCA-FCC, was advised that he needed dental work done, and submitted a dental request because of his pain. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Doe filled his teeth and told Plaintiff that pursuant to a contract with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.