The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 4)
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Michael Thomas, Sr., ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 1, 2011 in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 4. The case was transferred to this Court on July 11, 2011. ECF No. 8. On June 1, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of facts regarding his claim. ECF No. 21. On June 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response. ECF No. 22.
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 or malicious," 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).
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, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
II. Summary Of Complaint and More Definite Statement
Plaintiff was an incarcerated prisoner at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California. Plaintiff names as Defendants: the third sergeant at Mercy Hospital, John Doe 1, correctional officer Sal, correctional officer Ward, two unknown correctional officers, John Does 2 and 3, correctional officer Duck, and head nurse Pitts. Plaintiff also seeks relief against Mercy Hospital of Bakersfield. The Court thus construes Mercy Hospital as a Defendant in this action.
Plaintiff alleges the following. While at Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, California, Plaintiff was out of the intensive care unit for a day and a half. Defendants John Doe 1, Sal, Ward, and John Does 2 and 3 beat Plaintiff while he was handcuffed. Plaintiff had previously suffered a seizure, two strokes, an aneurysm, a heart attack, and contracted valley fever.
Plaintiff returned to PVSP, where a female doctor wrote down Plaintiff's condition and everything that occurred about the beating. Defendants Duck and Pitts made sure the paperwork got lost.
Plaintiff requests as relief: for Mercy Hospital to be held accountable, punishment for the sergeant and correctional officers, reasonable monetary damages, vacating of all restitution fines, and no reprisals.
The Court construes Plaintiff's allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force. "What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . ." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8. "The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, not "every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. "The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual ...