The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff Genaro Campos, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on April 13, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 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, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 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.
II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff was formerly housed at Wasco State Prison-Reception Center ("WSP"), where the events underlying Plaintiff's claims occurred. Plaintiff is no longer in custody. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff brings this action alleging he was provided inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment while at WSP. Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants: 1) Dr. Srivastava Pramod, 2) Dr. Zepp, 3) Director Dr. Michael Songer, and 4) Delano Regional Medical Center.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Plaintiff needed surgery on his hands due to severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff had surgery on his left hand and index finger. (Id.) There were problems with the surgery. (Id.) Defendants Songer and Zepp were the individuals responsible for sending Plaintiff to Defendant Pramod.*fn1 (Id.) A Dr. Brian C. Brenner was originally supposed to perform the surgery on Plaintiff's hand. (Id.)
Plaintiff asks for monetary compensation for his pain and suffering and for mental distress. Plaintiff also asks that Defendant Pramod's medical license be revoked. Finally, he asks that the Court order unnamed individuals at WSP to return his 602 appeals.
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 ...