The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 16)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This action proceeds on the May 10, 2012, second amended complaint.*fn1 Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied treatment for his hernia, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff named the following individual defendants: F. Igbinosa; Maria Koziol; Dr. Green; Christopher Smith; James Yates; R. Bone. Plaintiff's statement of claim in the first amended complaint, in its entirety, follows: "it took the prison several months to repair my hernia that I suffer pain refusing to repair my hernia on stomach."
In the order dismissing the first amended complaint, the Court found Plaintiff's allegations to be vague. Plaintiff set forth generalized allegations regarding his health care, and named individual defendants. Plaintiff was specifically advised that to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he"must plead that each government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Plaintiff was advised that even under a "deliberate indifference" theory of individual liability, he must still allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish each defendant's "knowledge of" and "acquiescence in" the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court noted that Plaintiff's "bald" and "conclusory" allegations were insufficient to establish individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 569-72. The first amended complaint was therefore dismissed.
Plaintiff was further advised that in his second amended complaint, he need not set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. Plaintiff was advised that in order to hold an individual defendant liable, he must name the individual defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff was directed to state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff was directed to describe what each defendant, by name, did to harm Plaintiff.
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants "Felix Igbinosa, et al.,). Plaintiff does not identify any other individual. Further, Plaintiff identifies Felix Igbinosa as the Warden at Mule Creek State Prison. In the original complaint, Plaintiff identified Felix Igbinosa as the Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The Court notes that Dr. Igbinosa is named as a defendant in other actions in this court, in the capacity of Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff's statement of claim in the second amended complaint, in is entirety, follows:
Do to the warden refusing my surgery on by stomack [sic], in which my hernia was hanging out of my stomack. The warden and his staff violation was my rights by the doctor placing four fingers into my stomack while it was open and my guts stuck out the institution know that this surgery must be done but they refuse me help, and this went on for a year.
Plaintiff is again advised that an amended complaint supercedes the prior complaint, and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading." Local Rule 220. The second amended complaint fails to identify any individual defendants that were personally involved in Plaintiff's health care. Plaintiff appears to wrongly identify Dr. Igbinosa as the Warden and Mule Creek State Prison, and charges "the institution" with knowing and disregarding Plaintiff's need for hernia surgery. Although Plaintiff refers to a doctor, he fails to identify that individual.
The Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to file a third amended complaint that cures the defects identified in this order and the order dismissing the first amended complaint. Plaintiff is again directed to state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff is directed to describe what each defendant, by name, did to harm Plaintiff. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in a ...