The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
On June 4, 2010, Plaintiff Francisco J. Gil, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) 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 names the following Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) officials as Defendants: (1) James A. Yates, Warden; (2) Felix Igbinosa, Chief Medical Officer; (3) J. Johnson, Licensed Vocational Nurse; (4) Ryan, Registered Nurse; (5) Manasrah, Nurse Practitioner; (6) Martinez, Health Care Appeals Coordinator (HCAC); (7) A. Nesbit, HCAC; (8) T. Birring, M.D.; and (9) an unspecified number of John Does.
Plaintiff alleges the following: Defendant Yates allowed Plaintiff to be falsely charged with illegal possession of medication resulting in the revocation of Plaintiff's good time credits. The lost credits lengthened Plaintiff's expected prison term at PVSP, amounted to false imprisonment in violation of the Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments and denied Plaintiff his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection. In addition, Valley Fever, a deadly disease with no cure, is endemic at PVSP. Defendants Yates and Igbinosa violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by failing to transfer Plaintiff to an institution outside of the endemic area or provide Plaintiff with treatment after becoming symptomatic. Plaintiff's First Amendment right to petition the Courts was also violated. (Compl. at 4-6.)
Defendants Martinez and Nesbit violated Plaintiff's First Amendment right to petition the Courts by blocking Plaintiff's appeals. The Defendants acted in retaliation against Plaintiff for filing inmate grievances. All of the Defendants were responsible for denying Plaintiff necessary diagnostic testing for Valley Fever in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. Plaintiff's rights afforded by the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments were also violated. (Compl. at 7-9.)
Plaintiff further alleges violations of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Sections 3350-3354 (id. at 4, 7, 12), various sections of the California Civil and Government Codes (id. at 13), Article 17 of the California Constitution (id. at 2), and state law claims of negligence and medical malpractice (id. at 11).
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 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.
Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim. The Complaint is a long series of legal conclusions with vague and repetitive factual allegations interspersed throughout. Plaintiff has not provided enough non-conclusory factual allegations to support his claims. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. In order to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff must provide the Court with "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. That is to say, Plaintiff must support his legal conclusions with sufficient factual allegations that specifically explain how each Defendant violated his rights. Plaintiff can not simply conclude that a particular Defendant violated his rights. Rather than focus his efforts on listing specific rights allegedly violated, Plaintiff should instead briefly state what each ...