The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE DECEMBER 27, 2011
Plaintiff Donald Craney ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff filed this action on October 4, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in the action.
Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (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). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.
Plaintiff is a prisoner currently housed at California State Prison at Avenal. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks to sue Defendant DePaulo for denial of adequate medical care, claiming "medical (m)alpractice, deliberate indifference, (and) negligence". Id. at 3. Plaintiff seeks to sue Defendant Merrills for covering up Defendant DePaulo's alleged conduct and denying Plaintiff his inmate appeal rights. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff sues Defendant DePaulo in an individual capacity and Defendant Merrills in an individual and an official capacity. Id. at 3. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $200,000 from each of the two Defendants. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following: On or about July 18, 2008, Plaintiff was treated in the prison medical clinic by Defendant DePaulo, who provided an antibiotic, doxycycline, for a diagnosed bronchitis infection. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges that doxycycline was an inappropriate treatment and that Plaintiff suffered an allegeric reaction to the doxycycline, specifically "swelling of the face, lips, jaws, forehead, headaches, redness of the eyes, itching and swelling of the testicles." Id. at 10. On or about July 21, 2008, Plaintiff was treated for the allergic reaction at the prison medical clinic.
On or about August 4, 2008 Plaintiff was transported to Community Regional Medical Center in non-acute condition suffering from "fever, night sweats...hypertension...weight loss...redness of the eyes, knee pain, ankle pain, and elbow pain." Id. at 18, 21-22. Plaintiff was evaluated, treated and discharged from the hospital on August 6, 2008. Id. at 18.
Plaintiff believes that Defendant Defendant DePaulo was negligent and deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Merrills, who interviewed Plaintiff and reviewed his appeal after the above events above, engaged in a cover-up or conspiracy and denied Plaintiff his inmate appeal rights.
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating ...