FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Michael John McGlothin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 16, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 4, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 17, 2011. (ECF No. 11.) No other parties have appeared in this action. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now before this Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, but has failed to provide sufficient facts to state any claims as to his remaining allegations and has failed to request any form of relief.
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 is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is housed at Kern Valley State Prison. He brings this action against Defendants K. Harrington, Sgt. D. Steen, Correctional Officer J. Torres, Correctional Officer M. Capello, Lt. Castro, Lt. Garza, and Sgt. Jose.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On May 12, 2009, Plaintiff, who was preparing to be transported to an eye appointment, was told by Defendant Capello to change out of his prison blues and into a transportation jumpsuit. As Plaintiff removed a sock, a $100 bill wrapped in plastic fell out. Plaintiff immediately swallowed the object. Defendant Capello asked what it was and Plaintiff replied that it was his medication. Defendant Capello told Plaintiff to give the item to him, but Plaintiff had already swallowed it.
Defendant Capello then rushed over to Plaintiff, who was on the ground, grabbed him by the arm, and slammed his knee into Plaintiff's back. Plaintiff was handcuffed and placed into a holding cage.
Defendant Torres placed Plaintiff in leg restraints and escorted Plaintiff along with Defendant Steen to the facility program office. Plaintiff asked that he be allowed to put on his socks. Defendants Torres and Steen denied the request. Plaintiff walked about seventy feet in his bare feet. As Plaintiff walked, the leg restraints were hurting his ankle bones and digging into his flesh.
Plaintiff was placed in the cage which was too small for him to sit down. Plaintiff had to stand for four hours with the leg restraints digging into his ankles. Defendants Torres and Steen required Plaintiff to put on a red jumpsuit and a pair of mitts which were obviously dirty and took him to a different facility to be placed on "potty watch".
Plaintiff asked Defendant Castro for different mitts, but she refused. Plaintiff broke out in sores and developed an infection from having to wear the mitts. Plaintiff then asked Defendant Jose for different mitts, and he refused. Plaintiff then asked for something to eat, Jose just laughed.
While on potty watch Plaintiff's mattress was removed from his cell at 6:00 a.m. and not returned until 9:00 p.m. for two days. Plaintiff told Defendant Garza about his spinal ...