The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (ECF No. 9)
CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE SCREENING ORDER
On August 27, 2009, Plaintiff Jorge D. Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil claim in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants removed the matter to this Court on the grounds that the claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on August 23, 2011, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.)
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
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, malicious," or 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).
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 federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff identifies the following individuals as Defendants in this action: (1) James A. Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"); (2) Dr. F. Igbinoza, Chief Medical Officer, PVSP; (3) John Doe # 1, Doctor, PVSP; (4) Dr. Jameson; (5) Dr. Mui; (6) John Doe # 2; and (7) Dr. Wilson, Level IV, PVSP.
Plaintiff alleges the following:
On January 12, 2006 Plaintiff was sent to the x-ray room from the yard clinic. A week prior he had experienced fever, chills, and night sweats and had trouble breathing and sleeping. (Compl. at 3.) The x-ray report stated "no oxygen on small part of the lung," indicating that Plaintiff's left lung was collapsing. ( Id.) At the time of the x-ray Dr. John Doe # 1 sent Plaintiff back to his cell with "some pills." (Id.) By leaving Plaintiff with medication as the only treatment for a collapsing lung, Doe # 1 exhibited "deliberate indifference to [Plaintiff's] health, nothing else was done to alleviate [Plaintiff's] pain or investigate the cause of [Plaintiff's] lung collapsing. At this point, [Doe # 1] knew these were 'Valley Fever' symptoms but [Doe # 1] send [Plaintiff] back to [his] cell with great pain for the next 7 days." (Id.)
By January 19, 2006, the symptoms had not subsided. The yard clinic sent Plaintiff to the x-ray room again. Examination showed that Plaintiff's left lung had collapsed completely and was taking on fluid. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was hospitalized with "pneumonia, dehydration, high fever, chest pain, difficulty breathing and with the left lung totally collapsed." (Id.) Had Doe # 1 provided the proper medical procedure after the initial x-ray, Plaintiff's condition would not have needed hospitalization. (Id.)
Plaintiff's lung was drained at University Medical Center in Fresno City. A team of doctors at the medical center recommended surgery and Plaintiff consented. Later the doctors decided against the surgery because it "was too risky.'" (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Dr. F. Igbinoza denied the surgery. (Id.) The doctors recommended a different surgery. Again Plaintiff consented. The attending doctors decided that surgery also was too risky. Plaintiff was returned to PVSP and began to see specialists "but . . . believe[s] that whatever they said was worthless because John Doe # 2 was stopping future treatments." (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff continued to experience painful symptoms.
On January 29, 2009, Dr. Jameson changed Plaintiff's medication. On March 17, 2010, Plaintiff's Valley Fever infection was low and Dr. Mui concluded that Plaintiff no longer needed medication. (Id.) On May 5, 2010, Dr. Wilson observed an increase in some measure of Valley Fever infection and resumed the medication originally ordered by Dr. Jameson. Seven days later Dr. Mui observed that Plaintiff's Valley Fever was at zero and ordered more tests. On June 18, 2010, Dr. Wilson reported to Plaintiff that his Valley Fever was getting ...