(PS) Hawkins v. Kaiser Permanente

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20252:22-cv-00034California2,725 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KET T. HAWKINS, Jr, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-0034-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

KAISER PERMANENTE SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs Ket Hawkins, Jr., and Lajuana L. Thompson, proceeding individually and as co- representatives of the estate of their deceased father, Ket Hawkins, Sr. (the “decedent”), allege that defendants Kaiser Permanente Sacramento (“Kaiser”), Sacramento Mather VA Medical Center, McKinley Park Care Center (“McKinley”), and Gramercy Court Skilled Nursing (“Gramercy”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and certain California laws by failing to provide the decedent emergency medical care, resulting in his premature death. ECF No. 15. Screening Order I. Screening and Pleading Requirements A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.