The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Maurice I. Butler ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 18, 2009 in the Central District of California; it has since been transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 1, 5, & 6.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before this Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
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).
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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff suffers from glaucoma and foot and shoulder problems, among other ailments. He alleges he received inadequate medical care for these conditions. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Jong Yeoung Moon, M.D.; William McGuiness, M.D.; J. Wang, M.D.; and Loadholt, R.N. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential, future, unliquidated, and punitive damages.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges: A. Eye Problems
On April 8, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Moon, his primary healthcare provider. Plaintiff informed Dr. Moon that he needed an appointment with an eye specialist in three weeks so he could have the pressure released in one eye (as it had earlier been released in the other eye). Plaintiff did not, however, get to see the eye specialist until November 2008. During the intervening eight months, Plaintiff saw Dr. Moon several times (May 13, June 27, August 25 and September 3, 2008) primarily for asthma treatment, but always complained about his eyes. Dr. Moon repeatedly told Plaintiff that he could do nothing about his glaucoma. He also refused to tell Plaintiff to stop using prescribed eye drops which Plaintiff felt increased his pain.
At his appointment with the specialist in November 2008, Plaintiff refused to be treated for the glaucoma, electing instead to receive treatment for dry eye syndrome. He was to have a follow-up appointment with the specialist in two weeks, but was not taken to the specialist for over 90 days. Plaintiff was seen by the specialist on May 15, 2009 and July 10, 2009; however, as of October 27, 2009, he had received no additional treatment.
Plaintiff saw a nurse on June 8, August 3, August 12, and August 29, 2008 for foot and shoulder pain. The nurse recommended Plaintiff be seen by a doctor. At his appointment with Dr. Moon, Dr. Moon asked Plaintiff which foot hurt worse. He took an xray of that foot, but refused to x-ray the other foot. Another doctor ordered that Plaintiff's other foot be x-rayed on June 27, 2008. The radiology report showed evidence of an acute displaced fracture or dislocation. Dr. Moon did not do any follow-up.
On August 18, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by a podiatrist who recommended shoe inserts temporarily and eventually boots. Plaintiff received no inserts for months, and then received the wrong type. Eventually, he received the wrong size of boots and had to wait months for the correct size. ...