The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 19)
On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Req. for Reassignment, ECF No. 5.)
The Court previously screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (Order Dismissing, ECF No. 15.) The First Amended Complaint (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 19) 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).
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's First Amended Complaint includes as its sole claim a renewal of the First Amendment retaliation claim asserted in his original Complaint. He repeats factual allegations that on or about May 6, 2008 he filed a prison grievance against Defendant Loadholt, a medical doctor at Corcoran State Prison, (First Am. Compl. at 9) regarding a change in his cholesterol medication (Id. at 15). "[S]omedays after that"*fn1 Defendant Loadholt summoned him, became irate that Plaintiff had filed a grievance against her (Id. at 15) left the room and returned stating "I told you, you were being narrow-minded. We can do this! So now you will pick your cholesterol medication up at the window everyday." (Id. at 9-10.) When Plaintiff asked why he would be no longer able to keep this medication on his person, Defendant Loadholt replied "you don't get it, we can do what we like with your medication; now, you will come to the window and take your cholesterol medication." (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges the pill window restriction was arbitrary and contrary to prison regulations*fn2 and an adverse action taken against him by Defendant Loadholt in retaliation for his grievance violating his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 4, 9-10.)
Plaintiff subsequently grieved this retaliatory requirement (Id. at 17, 24-25). His appeal was granted in October 2008 and he was allowed to keep his ...