The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 18)
CLERK TO CLOSE FILE
DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
THIRD SCREENING ORDER
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 for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint also was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but with leave to amend solely as to his excessive force claim. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.) On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 18), 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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff reiterates allegations in his earlier pleadings that staff at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") was deliberately indifferent to his pre- and post-surgical back problems, failed to accommodate his mobility disability, and used excessive force during a December 10, 2007 yard alarm (shortly after his back surgery) in which his walker was taken from him and he was made to stand with hands cuffed behind his back for approximately one hour.*fn1 (Second Am. Compl. at 7-8.)
The Second Amended Complaint does not contain any statement of claim or name any Defendants, referring instead to the same documentation included with his First Amended Complaint.)*fn2 (Id. at 2-10.)
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Id. at 3.)
A. Pleading Requirements ...