Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens a prisoner’s fifth amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court allows an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against defendant Akintola to proceed, denies appointed counsel, and denies as moot a motion for an extension of time. It recommends dismissing without leave to amend the claims against Kahlon and Anugwara based on taking plaintiff’s blood pressure, while maintaining the prior dismissal of claims against Campos and certain claims against Kahlon.
Holdings
- Akintola's withdrawal of the motion to dismiss and request that the fifth amended complaint be screened constituted consent to the amendment, allowing the court to screen the fifth amended complaint despite plaintiff's having filed it outside the period for amendment as of right.
- The fifth amended complaint adequately stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Akintola.
- The allegations against Kahlon and Anugwara based on taking plaintiff's high blood-pressure readings failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, and dismissal without leave to amend was recommended.
- Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel was denied because he did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant's withdrawal of a motion to dismiss and request for screening constituted consent to plaintiff's filing of a fifth amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
- Whether the fifth amended complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Akintola.
- Whether the claims against Campo, Kahlon, and Anugwara failed to state a claim or were barred from further amendment based on prior dismissal and the allegations that medical staff responded to plaintiff's high blood-pressure readings.
- Whether plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in the § 1983 action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (15)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)(followed)
- Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)(followed)
- Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969)(followed)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…