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.

Meier v. Correct Care Solutions

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

April 14, 2017

BILLY J. MEIER, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, CLARK COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE Custody Branch and PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT/CLARK COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.

          ORDER TO SHOW OR TO AMEND

          Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge

         Before the Court for review is Plaintiff Billy J. Meier's proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. The Court has determined that it will not direct service of plaintiff's complaint at this time because it is deficient. However, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed or to file an amended complaint by May 15, 2017.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center (“WCC”). He seeks $500, 000 in damages and injunctive relief relating to his medical care and the conditions of his confinement at the Clark County Jail. Plaintiff sues Correct Care Solutions, the Clark County Sheriff's Office (Custody Branch), and an unidentified Clark County Jail physician's assistant.

         Plaintiff alleges that in January 2017, he signed up for sick call for treatment of a hernia which he believes was caused when he was forced to get up on a top bunk without a ladder. Plaintiff alleges he was told that as long as the hernia retracts on its own there is nothing to be done for him. Plaintiff also alleges that he has mental illness and “this is really effecting me.” Plaintiff maintains that the Clark County Sheriff's Office (Custody Branch) is negligent for not providing a ladder to the top bunks and that Correct Care Solutions is “neglectful of inmates medical needs, the physician's assistant didn't even look at my hernia, he just determined that medical treatment wasn't needed.” Dkt. 3, p. 3.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court declines to serve the complaint because it contains fatal deficiencies that, if not addressed, might lead to a recommendation of dismissal of the entire action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

         Plaintiff's complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the conduct about which he complains was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived him of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, to state a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

         A. Exhaustion

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires inmates to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (2009). To effectively exhaust his administrative remedies, an inmate must use all the formal steps of the prison grievance process. Id. Because the purpose of exhaustion is to give prison administrators a chance to resolve the issues, the inmate must exhaust each of his claims through grievances containing enough factual specificity to notify officials of the alleged harm. Id. at 1120.

         Plaintiff's civil rights complaint is dated April 3, 2017. Dkt. 3, p. 4. Consequently, any claim not exhausted prior to that date may not be pursued in this action. Exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint and compliance with the statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion requirement during the course of an action. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiff states that he was transferred from “county to DOC before [he] was able to file a grievance.” Dkt. 3, p. 2.

         Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts to allow the Court to determine whether he has filed this complaint prematurely, including the date of his transfer and whether he initiated any grievance procedure. Plaintiff is directed to explain why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to fully exhaust.

         B. Eighth Amendment

         1. ...


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.