The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff Benjamin M. Caranchini ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 1, 2011.
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937');">129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
III. Summary of Complaint
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Secured Housing Unit at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names Secretary of CDCR Matthew Cate, Warden Raul Lopez, Jeffrey Neubarth, M.D., M. Briggs, Edgar Clark, M.D., Health Care Manager Joseph Obaiza, Health Care Appeals Coordinator Lisa Salinas and Appeals Examiner C. Hammond as Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 24, 2009, while incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, Dr. Williams identified Plaintiff has having a Permanent Mobility Impairment Disability that impacted housing. On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff appeared before the Classification Committee at Pelican Bay. Plaintiff's counselor informed the Committee that she had contacted Defendant Briggs at Corcoran State Prison and was told that Plaintiff would be housed in an handicap unit upon transfer. The Committee acted to transfer Plaintiff to Corcoran for adequate "ADA" housing.
On September 31, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to Corcoran but he was not housed in a handicap unit or ADA housing.
On October 3, 2009, Plaintiff submitted an appeal and requested appropriate housing based on his disability and medical transfer.
On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant Neubarth. Defendant Neubarth denied Plaintiff's request for ADA housing.
On November 23, 2009, Defendant Clark and Defendant Obaiza denied Plaintiff's request for ADA housing at the Second Level of Review.
On February 23, 2010, Defendant Hammond denied Plaintiff's request for ADA housing at the Director's Level of Review.
In August 2010, Plaintiff was granted holding bars and a raised toilet, as well as holding bars and a seat in the shower. Plaintiff was issued a wheelchair on January 12, 2011.
On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Kern County Superior Court based on allegations that he was denied housing in the SHU ADA Building. An order to show cause was issued to Respondents on March 23, 2011.
Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on Defendants' failure to provide him with "decent facilities;" (2) deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's physical mobility impairment in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on "inhumane conditions"; (3) intentional discrimination based on disability in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) failure to train and supervise; and (5) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment based on failure to accommodate Plaintiff with adequate ADA accommodations.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief.
A. Supervisory Liability- Defendants ...