FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is defendants' June 7, 2011 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Upon review of the motion, the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP") in Soledad, California. The incidents at issue occurred while plaintiff was incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento ("CSP-Sac") in Folsom, California. Defendants Bal, Sahota, Nangalama, Masuret and Woods are employees at CSP-Sac. Compl. at 3-4. Defendants Rhoads, Pompan*fn1 , Bright and Sepulveda are employees at SVSP. Id. at 4-6.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a variety of ailments, including a degenerative hip condition, arthritis, asthma and mobility issues, which require constant medical and nursing care. Plaintiff brings suit against defendants for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights for their failure to treat and/or accommodate his medical needs.
On April 29, 2009, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal at CSP-Sac, which was given the tracking number SAC-10-09-11088 (Tracking No. IA-51-2009-20179). See Compl., Ex. A. Therein, plaintiff alleged that he has mobility issues requiring medical care. Id. at 3-6. Plaintiff sought an interview with Dr. Sahota and an immediate transfer to a medical facility. Id.
With his administrative grievance, plaintiff also submitted a Reasonable Modification or Accommodation Request form (CDC 1824) ("1824 request"). See Compl., Ex. A at 5. There, plaintiff requested an immediate transfer to a medical facility, daily physical therapy at the medical facility and an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon. Id.
On May 11, 2009, plaintiff's grievance was assigned to the Health Care Appeals Coordinator for a First Level response. See Compl., Ex. A at 7.
On June 18, 2009, plaintiff was interviewed by defendant Nangalama, M.D. See Compl., Ex. A at 8. Thereafter, plaintiff's appeal was partially granted and plaintiff was informed that a disability verification form, necessary for a transfer, was pending. Id. at 8-9. As for his 1824 request for physical therapy and an appointment with an orthopedist, plaintiff was informed that those requests would be considered upon the outcome of the transfer request. Id.
On July 12, 2009, plaintiff appealed to the second level of review because he had not yet been transferred and because a disability verification form was not in his file. See Compl., Ex. A at 4; 10-11. Plaintiff asserted that Drs. Sahota and Nangalama were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs for their failure to effectuate a transfer. Id.
On July 24, 2009, plaintiff's appeal was partially granted by defendant Bal at the second level of review. Compl., Ex. A at 10-11. Bal informed plaintiff that Drs. Sahota and Nangalama were not medially indifferent because Dr. Nangalama did not have authority to approve a medical transfer and that Dr. Sahota approved the medical transfer, but it had not yet been included in plaintiff's chart. Id.
On November 17, 2009, plaintiff appealed to the third level of review because he had not yet been transferred. Compl., Ex. A at 4. On December 30, 2009 at the third level of review, plaintiff's complaint was screened out as untimely. Compl., Ex. A at 2.
Plaintiff initiated this action on September 17, 2010 against defendants Clark Kelso, Dr. J. Bal, Dr. Sahota, Dr. A. Nangalama, CCII A. Masuret, CCI T. Woods, J. Rhoads NP, Dr. D. Pompan, Dr. D. Bright and Dr. Sepulveda. Plaintiff alleges that since March 2008, defendants Bal, Sahota and Nangalama have been aware of and deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. Plaintiff also alleges that since May 2010, when he was transferred to SVSP, defendants Rhoads, Pompan, Sepulveda and Bright have been similarly aware of and deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
On April 22, 2011, defendant Kelso filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on July 11, 2011.
On April 26, 2011, defendant Pompan filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not filed an ...