The opinion of the court was delivered by: Suzanne H. Segal United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
On October 25, 2010, plaintiff Hoang Minh Tran ("Plaintiff"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 14, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend due to various deficiencies in pleading. On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended*fn1 Complaint. On May 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend due to deficiencies in pleading. On June 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On August 19, 2011, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend due to deficiencies in pleading. On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint" or "TAC"). Because the Third Amended Complaint also suffers from pleading*fn2 deficiencies, it too must be dismissed with leave to amend.
Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portions thereof, before service of process if it concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that the following four defendants violated his civil rights: (1) medical doctor J. Haar ("Dr. Haar"); (2) correctional officer Glaviz Doe ("Officer Glaviz"); (3) acting sergeant Floerky Doe *fn3 ("Sergeant Floerky"); and (4) medical doctor M. Viggianelli ("Dr. Viggianelli") (collectively, "Defendants"). (TAC at 3-4). Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual capacities. (Id.).
While Plaintiff's claims are confusing, they appear to focus primarily on allegations of deliberate indifference to medical needs and denial of access to the courts. (See id. at 5-16). In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Haar was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs following his hernia operation. (Id. at 5-7). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Haar "deliberatedly [sic] indifferenced [sic] to Plaintiff's medical needs by failured [sic] to prescribe for Plaintiff the effective pain-killer medication remedy." (Id. at 7). Additionally, Plaintiff claims Dr. Haar violated Plaintiff's First and Eighth Amendment rights by failing to properly treat Plaintiff's "assaulted post-operative hernia" injury. (Id. at 8-9). Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Haar ignored Plaintiff's painful condition, thereby exposing an "imminent risk to Plaintiff's life, health and well-being in the prison setting for over two hundreds [sic] days." (Id.). Plaintiff also claims Dr. Haar failed to "effectively diagnose Plaintiff's hernia . . . causing . . . harsh burning physical pains," and failed to provide "adequate medical right  care treatment to Plaintiff's serious medication condition." (Id.).
Plaintiff also alleges that after he filed a grievance, Dr. Haar retaliated by revoking Plaintiff's "cell-fed status," and confiscating Plaintiff's cane, "hernia truss strap," and "hearing impairment yellow vest." (Id. at 9).
In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Glaviz and Sergeant Floresky "intentionally deprived Plaintiff's First Amendment right; the right to access the law library and the right to be free from discrimination, retaliation and abusive mistreatment from officers." (Id. at 11). Plaintiff further alleges that "[Officer] Glaviz unlawful threaten to causing great bodily harm to Plaintiff's body." (Id.). Plaintiff's additional allegations against these defendants are unclear. However, it appears that Plaintiff asserts that Officer Glaviz and Sergeant Floresky conspired to deny Plaintiff access to the law library on August 13, 2010. (Id. at 12). Further, Plaintiff claims that following this incident, Officer Glaviz filed a false "128 B-Chrono Report" which could have "cost Plaintiff a serious loss of his A1A privilege benefits." (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Officer Glaviz "ignored and failed to respond to Plaintiff's grievance, a direct violation of California Code of Regulation (CRC) Title 15 Section 3084.6 . . . ." (Id. at 13).
In Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Viggianelli ignored Plaintiff's medical condition and covered up Dr. Haar's misconduct by preparing a false report. (Id. at 14-15). Specifically, Plaintiff claims Dr. Viggianelli knew the medical condition of Plaintiff, yet failed to adequately treat Plaintiff causing "substantial pains," and "significantly affects Plaintiff's daily activities." (Id. at 14). Further, Plaintiff asserts Dr. Viggianelli "falsify the Disability Placement Program (DPP) medical report to further 'cover-up' for his partner [Dr. Haar's] misconduct by said '[Plaintiff] has had multiple exams and does not have any mobility impairment.'" (Id. at 15).
Plaintiff seeks $150,000.00 in compensatory damages, $350,000.00 in general damages, and $50,000.00 in special damages. (Id. at 17). Plaintiff also requests injunctive relief, asking the Court to "enjoin the Defendants, as well as their successors, from engaging in any future conduct related to this civil action . . . ." (Id.).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint due to defects in pleading. Pro se litigants in civil rights cases, however, must be given leave to amend their complaints unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128-29. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend, as indicated below.
A. Plaintiff's Claims Against Dr. Haar and Dr. Viggianelli For Deliberate Indifference To Medical Needs Must Be ...