The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN DIRECTOR THIRTY DAYS (ECF NO. 1)
Plaintiff , Esias Cintron, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)
On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant action in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On March 23, 2011, that court ordered dismissal of certain time-barred claims, and transferred the remaining claims to this Court. (ECF. No. 4.) Plaintiff's Complaint, as transferred, is now before the Court for screening.
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).
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 (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.
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, CA. (CSATF-SP). (Compl., p. 1, ECF No. 1.) His claims relate to prior confinement at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), in Coalinga, California. (Compl. at 4.) He alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and retaliated against him for seeking adequate care and treatment. (Id.)
Plaintiff names as Defendants, in their official and individual capacity, acting under color of state law (1) Dr. Duenas MD, employed by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDC-R") as Chief Medical Officer at PVSP, who is responsible for supervising PVSP medical staff and outside providers, (2) Dr. Reshid MD, employed by Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, California, a CDC-R contract provider, (3) Williams, employed by CDC-R as a captain/correctional officer at PVSP, (4) Cantu, employed by CDC-R as a correctional officer at PVSP, and (5) Does 1-15, consisting of the Director of CDC-R, acting CDC-R Director, and CDC-R employees responsible for medical care of inmates at PVSP.*fn1 (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff alleges that his back was injured in an attack by other inmates in 1999 at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), in Soledad, California. (Id. at 11.) In 2003, Plaintiff was transferred to PVSP. (Id. at. 5.) There he continued to suffer severe back pain, requiring daily pain medication. (Id. at 12.)
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, by:
Delaying needed surgery until 2007, at which time his back was operated on by Defendant Reshid at Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, (Id. at 12);
As to Defendants Duenas and Reshid, failing to ensure the 2007 surgery was necessary, successful, and followed-up with post-surgical care, (Id. at 11-16);
As to Defendants Williams and Cantu, failing to provide post-surgical care. (Id. at 16-17.)
Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants retaliated against him for his inmate prison appeals seeking proper treatment and care, by:
As to Defendants Duenas and Reshid, allowing him inadequate hospitalization and rest following the 2007 surgery, (Id. at 5-7, 11-18);
As to Defendants Williams and Cantu, cell extraction, depriving him of his post-surgical walker and cane a month following surgery, and forcing him to stand, unsupported, with hands cuffed behind his back, refusing his request to see a doctor. (Id. at 8-9, 11-18.)
Plaintiff complains he suffers severe and constant back, leg and hip pain, and that he is permanently disabled from these significant effects on his daily activities. (Id. at 3, 12, 17.)
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for "proper medical diagnostic testing and treatment", unspecified general, special, and punitive damages, ...