Moore

Moore v. Kumar

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20215:21-cv-04037California1,190 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 John Wayne Moore, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se prisoner’s civil 19 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF 20 No. 3.)1 His complaint is now before the court for review. This order finds that the complaint has 21 several deficiencies and requires Mr. Moore to file an amended complaint.

STATEMENT

23 Mr. Moore alleges the following in his complaint: Dr. Williams and Dr. Vaid withheld 24 treatment necessary for Mr. Moore’s multiple sclerosis on three separate occasions. These doctors 25 are under the supervision of Chief Medical Officer Kumar. This resulted in Mr. Moore being 26 27 1 Citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECF-generated admitted to an outside hospital on each occasion. Staff also failed to administer certain medications. Mr. Moore states that these actions led to the advancement of the disease. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) ANALYSIS A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or…

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.