The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
SCREENING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE (Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Florencio Vallejo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 17, 2010. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Kathleen Allison, Receiver J. Clark Kelso, Chief Medical Offier A. Enenmoh, Dr. Gray, Lieutenant T. Pepper, Captain S. Frauenheim, Associate Warden R. M. Diaz, and Does 1-25 arising out of the failure to accommodate his medical condition. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2009, he was denied the use of a wheelchair to get to medical appointments and the dining hall. As a result, he was forced to drag himself across the ground, resulting in cuts, scrapes, and humiliation. Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently approved for a wheelchair.
To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, Plaintiff must show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)) (quotation marks omitted). The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat his condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and (2) the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Deliberate indifference is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference, and deliberate indifference may be manifested when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care. Id. (citation and quotations omitted).
If Plaintiff was unable to walk and he required the use of a wheelchair to get around, the failure to provide one, which resulted in Plaintiff having to drag himself around on the ground, supports an Eighth Amendment claim. However, the events at issue occurred in May 2009, and all of the named defendants are included in this action because they held positions of authority within the prison system and/or they were involved in reviewing Plaintiff's inmate appeal grieving the past misconduct of prison staff.
Neither respondeat superior nor an after-the-fact review of an inmate grievance will support a claim against Defendants. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that each named defendant, through personal involvement, knowingly disregarded an excessive risk of harm to his health. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at ...