The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 2)
Dion Martell King ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff originally filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California on August 28, 2007. (Doc. 2.) The Northern District Court found Plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit deficient, and on August 31, 2007, ordered that the case be transferred to this District. (Doc. 1-4.) The case was opened and docketed by this Court on September 5, 2007.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint
At the time of the issues complained of in his complaint, Plaintiff was a state prisoner at Avenal State Prison ("ASP") in Avenal, California. At the time of filing his complaint, Plaintiff was confined at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. On January 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address directing mail to be sent to a P.O. Box in Imperial, California. (Doc. 11.)
Plaintiff names ASP and California Department of Corrections ("CDC") as the defendants in this action. Plaintiff generally alleges that, on July 4, 2004, he began experiencing severe chest pains which he reported to the building officer, who sent him to the MTA, where he was prescribed ineffective Motrin without diagnostic efforts. Plaintiff continued to be symptomatic and eventually went "Man Down" such that he was transported to the main infirmary where he was ultimately diagnosed with Valley Fever. Plaintiff claims that he contracted Valley Fever while working at the ASP chicken farm, and that the delay in diagnosis caused him to lose 25% if his right lung. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
It should be noted that Plaintiff's complaint is composed of simply a chronological rendition of facts -- without delineating which facts he feels show violation(s) of any specific constitutional right(s). The Court provides Plaintiff with the following law that appears to apply to his factual scenario. However, if Plaintiff intended to pursue other constitutional violations, he must delineate them and correlate his claims for relief with their alleged factual basis. Plaintiff may be able to amend to correct deficiencies in his pleading so as to state cognizable claims. Thus, he is being given what appear to be the applicable standards based on his factual scenario and leave to file a first amended complaint.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an ...