The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Ruben Mijel Chavira, a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("CAND") on October 11, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Compl., ECF No. 1), and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 14, 2011.
(Order of Transfer, ECF No. 3.)
Plaintiff's Complaint 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 COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's Complaint is disjointed, barely legible and difficult to understand. It appears to allege as follows:
While at KVSP in January 2010 Plaintiff was told by a doctor he would be going to an outside hospital for surgery on his left hand. (Compl. at 3.) He initiated a related prison appeal in June 2011. (Id.) Defendant Ruth reviewed his appeal at the First Level. (Id.) He filed a claim with the State Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board in August 2011; it was rejected in September of 2011. (Id. at 5-6.)
He names as Defendant R.C. Ruth, Health Care Manager and Director of Nurses at KVSP. (Id. at 2-3.)
He seeks money damages for medical and mental ...