The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S.Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
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 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636©).
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).
"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF), brings this action against correctional officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at SATF. Plaintiff names the following defendants: Chief Medical Officer A. Enenmoh; Warden Kathleen Allison; CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
This action proceeds on the original complaint filed on July 19, 2011. Plaintiff claims that he was denied adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance, requesting treatment for back pain and requesting that he be given blood tests and prescribed thyroid medication. Plaintiff did not receive a response to his grievance.
On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed another grievance, indicating that he is "no longer receiving the proper treatment nor the proper dose of medication (reduce to 25 mg of Levothyroxine)." Plaintiff "requested chronos from medical unit but medical unit refused to provide."
On June 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed another grievance, indicating that "Plaintiff has explained to medical staff that there is no longer required thyroid medication," as he had been put on a low dosage medication. Plaintiff filed another grievance on August 10, 2010,complaining that "medical staff" has "refused to provide Plaintiff with the proper dosage for treatment."
On August 31, 2010, Plaintiff received a response to the August 10th grievance. The response indicated that Plaintiff "failed to demonstrate that the issues ...