The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO (ECF No. 2) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER
On July 30, 2009, Plaintiff Andre Del Lee Gaspelin, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil claim in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno. (ECF No. 2, Ex. A.) Defendants removed the matter to this Court on the grounds that the claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 2.) Before removal, Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint. (Id., Ex. E); seeFed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (id.) is now before the Court for screening. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)
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).
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 federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff identifies the following individuals as Defendants in this action: (1) James
A. Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"); (2) Dr. F. Igbinoza, Chief Medical Officer, PVSP; and (3) twenty John Does.
Plaintiff alleges the following:
In December 2005, Plaintiff, a type I diabetic, fell ill and was taken to a hospital where he was told that he had pneumonia and Valley Fever, a potentially fatal disease endemic to PVSP. Plaintiff was given fluids intravenously and his blood sugar was controlled. (Compl. at 6.) He was placed on a medication regimen when returned to PVSP. On January 16, 2009, Plaintiff again tested positive for Valley Fever and again his blood sugar was poorly controlled. Plaintiff asked several times to be transferred to a facility not endemic to Valley Fever, but each request was denied. (Id.)
The Defendants had actual notice of the dangerous conditions at PVSP with regard to Valley Fever exposure as numerous staff members and inmates had become infected. Nevertheless, the Defendants took no action to transfer Plaintiff or otherwise mitigate the risk. (Id. at 7.) The Defendants also knew or should have known that as a Southern Californian, Plaintiff was particularly vulnerable to Valley Fever.
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' conduct described above violated his Eighth Amendment rights; Title 15, California Code of Regulations, §§ 3350-3354; California Civil Code ...