Angelo Joseph Flores v. Monivirin Son, Jeremy Martin, and the Amador County Sheriff's Department

Flores v. Son · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 6, 2023 · No. 2:22-cv-02077-KJM-JDP (PC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Angelo Joseph Flores’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court finds cognizable a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim against Dr. Monivirin Son, but finds the claims against Jeremy Martin and the Amador County Sheriff’s Department insufficiently pleaded. Flores is ordered either to proceed only against Dr. Son or to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

Holdings

  1. For screening purposes, plaintiff's allegation that Dr. Son refused without justification to provide necessary prescription medication stated a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim.
  2. The complaint failed to state a cognizable claim against Martin because it did not allege that he knew of Dr. Son's refusal or was otherwise involved in plaintiff's medical care.
  3. The complaint failed to state a municipal-liability claim because it did not allege that a departmental policy, custom, or practice was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation.
  4. The court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint states a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim against Dr. Son.
  2. Whether the complaint states a claim against Captain Martin based on an alleged failure to intervene or involvement in plaintiff's medical care.
  3. Whether the complaint states a municipal-liability claim against the Amador County Sheriff's Department.
  4. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009)(followed)
  • Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)
  • Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…