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 AMEND (ECF NO. 16)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Brown, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se filed this action on September 15, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff's Complaint was screened by the Court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss Compl., ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2012 (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 16). It 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).
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California. In 2009 Plaintiff was examined by a criminal defense psychiatrist who issued a forensic opinion that Plaintiff suffered from a pyschotic condition of chronic post-traumatic stress syndrome and related mental illness exacerbated by years of isolated confinement and housing in the Segregated Housing Unit ("SHU").*fn1 (First Am. Compl. at 4, 8, 10.)
Plaintiff told Defendants, all U.S. Bureau of Prisons mental health professionals, of his underlying traumatic events; yet Defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat his serious mental condition in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 3, 7-11.)
He names the following Defendants (1) Kodger, Ph.D, Atwater USP, (2) Crago, Ph.D, Atwater USP, (3) Fenche, Ph.D, Atwater USP, (4) Kennedy, Staff Psych., Atwater USP, (5) Slate, Psych., Atwater, USP, (6) Mitchell, Psych., Allenwood, USP, (7) Duncan, Psych., Atlanta USP, (8) Pinnix-Hall, Psch., Atlanta USP, (9) Ray, Staff Psych., Victorville USP, (10) Jaszkowiak, Psych., Beaumont USP, (11) Freeman, M.A., Hazelton USP, (12) Schlak, Psych., Edgefeild FCI. (Id. at 1, 3.)
He claims Defendants have caused him pain and suffering, further mental impairment and wrongful conviction.*fn2 He seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 3.)
A. Pleading Requirements Generally
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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949--50.
Under Bivens, a plaintiff may sue a federal officer in his or her individual capacity for damages for violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Bivens 403 U.S. at 397. To state a claim a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution of the United States was ...