The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. WU United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
For the reasons discussed below, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
Plaintiff, a detainee at the West Valley Detention Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint on April 7, 2009. The Complaint names as Defendants: (1) the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Health Services ("DHS"); (2) San Bernardino County Sheriff Deputies S. Wallen, Dyberg, J. Gelians, C. Fisher, Ohannessian, Garnett, and A. Chrzanowski; and (3) San Bernardino County "S. C. S." Barbara Montes. All individual defendants are sued in their individual capacities.
The Complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff apparently asserts three claims for relief. In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical treatment for injuries assertedly sustained from an assault by unidentified San Bernardino County Sheriff Deputies that took place on or about October 29, 2008. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that the DHS waited 91 days before x-raying Plaintiff's injured left shoulder following the alleged assault. Plaintiff further alleges that he has not received his "psych." medication since his incarceration. Plaintiff alleges that he has "put in" a number of unacknowledged inmate grievances. See Complaint, p. 3, and accompanying attachments (inmate grievance forms). The only Defendant identified in Claim One is the DHS.
In Claim Two, Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants Montes, Dyberg, and Gelians "thwart[ed]" Plaintiff's ability to file a civil rights complaint with this Court on or about January 25, 2009. Plaintiff does not allege specifically how these Defendants purportedly thwarted Plaintiff's ability to file a complaint.*fn1 Plaintiff further alleges that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in retaliation for filing another civil rights complaint with this Court in East v. K. Lewis, Case No. CV 09-142-GW(E). Plaintiff alleges that he has been told by unnamed "staff" that Plaintiff would be placed in the hole if Plaintiff continued to file grievances. Plaintiff does not allege that he has been placed in the hole. See Complaint, p. 4, and accompanying attachments (inmate grievance forms).
In Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges that from October 29, 2008 to February 27, 2009, the named Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his federally-protected rights (i.e., Plaintiff's right to due process, free speech, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) by: (1) Defendant Wallen allegedly assaulting Plaintiff on October 29, 2008;
(2) Defendants Dyberg, Gelians, and Montes "helping to thwart" a federal complaint by allegedly threatening to throw Plaintiff in the hole for exercising his right to file a civil complaint against the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department deputies who assaulted Plaintiff; (3) Defendants Fisher and Ohannessian allegedly investigating Plaintiff's related grievances improperly; (4) Defendant Garnett allegedly "holding back" Plaintiff's mail during Defendant Garnett's shift; and (5) Defendant Chrzanowski allegedly threatening Plaintiff for exercising his federal rights. See Complaint, p. 5.
The request for relief seeks an injunction for Plaintiff "to work in the unit [Plaintiff is] housed in." Plaintiff does not explain how the requested injunctive relief relates to the claims alleged herein. Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in compensatory damages. Plaintiff also seeks $380,000 in punitive damages from the DHS. See Complaint, p. 7.
The Court sua sponte must dismiss any of Plaintiff's claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim"); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) (statutory authority clear: courts shall dismiss "at any time" if court determines action fails to state claim on which relief may be granted).
When a plaintiff appears pro se, the Court construes the pleadings liberally. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). When the court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim, the court should grant leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured.
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Complaint in this action is deficient for a number of reasons. First, Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain a "short and plain" statement of the claim for relief. "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). Here, the claims in the Complaint consist of lengthy narratives. Additionally, the narrative for Claim One references only the DHS as a Defendant. To the extent Plaintiff may wish to identify additional Defendants for that claim, Plaintiff should name those Defendants. The narrative for Claim Two, which references unnamed "staff," does not clearly identify the staff or indicate whether those persons are ...