The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 82)
Plaintiff Manuel Arenas ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is the First Amended Complaint, filed March 19, 2012. (ECF No. 82.)
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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 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)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)).
Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
II. Complaint Allegations
Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Enanmoh was promoted to the position of Chief Medical Officer and was aware that Plaintiff suffered from severe pain and that denial of his pain medication would result in Plaintiff having a seizure. (First Amended Complaint 2, ECF No. 82.)
On March 6 and 7, 2008, Plaintiff went to the facility clinic and was informed that his pain medication had been discontinued. Plaintiff suffered a seizure on March 10, 2008, from being denied pain medication. Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal and was informed that he would receive proper pain management and healthcare services. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Enanmoh was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by failing to act and he is being denied pain medication, medical treatment, and healthcare services. (Id. at 2.) The registered nurses took it upon themselves to deprive Plaintiff of healthcare services. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff alleges that the healthcare provided at the prison is inadequate and displays callous disregard to the health and well being of prisoners, including Plaintiff. On March 6, 2007, Plaintiff went to the clinic because he had not received his medication and was told that the prescription would be filled by noon. On March 7, 2007, Plaintiff went to the clinic and was turned away again.
On March 10, 2007, Plaintiff went to the clinic with chest pains and was placed in a holding cell, at which time he had a seizure. When Plaintiff came to he was informed that his medication had been discontinued. Plaintiff was seen by a doctor, "who might have been [Defendant] Enanmoh." (Id.) The doctor checked Plaintiff's file, gave him his medication and told Plaintiff that his prescription would be filled on the yard in the morning. Plaintiff received his medication the next morning, but after that he was prescribed Codeine. (Id.) Plaintiff submitted an appeal and the response was delayed and he chose not to pursue it to the second level because appeals are screened out in an attempt to deprive Plaintiff of due process and equal protection and prevent him from presenting the violations of his constitutional rights. (Id. at 5.)
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend his complaint, and has now filed two complaints without alleging facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim. The Court finds that the deficiencies are unable to be ...