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 Esias Cintron is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent, ECF No. 9.)
Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 16) which 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 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint reiterates claims raised in his original Complaint that staff at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and failed to accommodate his mobility disability. It does not include a statement of claim or clearly name additional defendant(s). (First Am. Compl. at 2-3.) Instead it references his inmate appeal and a declaration and chronology of events attached to the First Amended Complaint relating to care and treatment of his pre-existing back injury. (Id. at 3.)
The attached documents all involve diagnosis, surgery, and post-surgical actions by medical and corrections staff at PVSP in 2007. (Id. at 4-11.) They reflect his pre-surgical complaints to PVSP medical staff seeking further diagnosis, treatment and pain medication. (Id. at 4-5, 11.) The declaration focuses on a December 10, 2007 event in which PVSP correction staff, Defendants Officer Cano and a Doe corrections officer approached Plaintiff when he refused to sit on the ground during an alarm in the yard, took his walker, cuffed his hands behind his back and forced him to stand for approximately an hour. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges in his declaration that the walker was issued by "the yard physician" and that "a walker is an appliance for ADA/[Disabled Prisoner Program] mobility impaired purposes." (Id. at 6-7.) The chronology sets out events in the few months preceding and following his November 12, 2007 back surgery, including his discharge from the hospital on November 14, 2007 "with [a] walker for 2 mons", and staff's alleged failure on occasion to follow his chrono for in-cell food, medication and dressing change. (Id. at 8-10.)
Plaintiff names as Defendant Officer Cano and references the above described attachments to identify additional defendants. (Id. at 3.)
He seeks monetary compensation. (Id. at 3.)
A. Pleading Requirements Generally
To state a claim under § 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 the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. ...