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.

Follstad-Martin v. Naphcare at Washington County Jail

United States District Court, D. Oregon

May 28, 2019

JONATHAN DERRY FOLLSTAD-MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
NAPHCARE at WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.

          ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER TO DISMISS

          Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Washington County Jail, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1). However, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint.

         BACKGROUND

         In the caption of his Complaint, Plaintiff names one Defendant, "Naphcare at Washington County Jail." At page 3 of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff identifies Nurse Ericka and Medical Coordinator Ryan, both "at Naphcare Washington County Jail." Plaintiff alleges denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and retaliation in. violation of the First Amendment.

         Plaintiff alleges that on the morning of January 26, 2019, a nurse at the Jail gave Plaintiff ari incorrect medication. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered side effects of anxiety, racing heart, and delusions throughout the day, and that when he sought a medical examination at the end of the day, the nurse refused. Plaintiff alleges the following morning he received his correct medication, and that when he asked what he had received the prior day the same nurse dismissed his concerns.

         Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance with the medical coordinator, and that after he did so Naphcare staff members retaliated against him by thereafter singling him out and asking him to properly identify himself before dispensing medications to him.

         By way of remedy, Plaintiff seeks money damages. The Court notes that Plaintiff did not sign his Complaint.

         STANDARDS

         A district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the court supplies the plaintiff with a statement of the complaint's deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 83 9 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro se litigant will be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Procedural Deficiencies

         Pursuant Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties." As noted, the title of Plaintiff s Complaint does not name all of the Defendants listed at page 3 of the Complaint.

         Pursuant to Rule 11 (a), every pleading "must be signed... by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). "The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the . . . party's attention." Id.

         II. ...


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.