The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
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).
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).
"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Supervising Nurse B. Amrhein; Correctional Officer (C/O) Austin; C/O Brad; J. Bondogi; T. Cano; E. Clark; K. Cribbs; J. Jones; L. Nelson; L. Schultz. Plaintiff sets forth claims of conspiracy, denial of medical care, failure to protect, negligence and spoliation of medical records.
Plaintiff's complaint consists of 25 pages of rambling narrative. Plaintiff alleges generally that he has been subjected to a continuing course of "unconstitutional conduct." Plaintiff alleges that he and other inmates are denied medical care in reprisal for the filing of inmate grievances. Plaintiff alleges that prior to May of 2009, he had filed more than 50 inmate appeals. Plaintiff alleges that for the past 15 years, officials have retaliated against inmates by poisoning their food. The food rations for the inmates have been "sadistically" reduced.
Plaintiff alleges that officials have refused to acknowledge the existence of written affidavits and complaints by other inmates regarding conditions at Corcoran. Plaintiff "smuggled" 25 declarations of other inmates that corroborate his allegations of widespread food contamination. Plaintiff was told to "shut up" about the allegations.
Plaintiff alleges that he was prescribed a dietary supplement that improved his physical condition. Once Plaintiff's condition improved, the housing unit C/Os "began verbalizing their tremendous displeasure" to the LVNs issuing the nutritional supplements to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance regarding his nutritional supplement. Plaintiff complained that when the LVNs would bring the supplement to his cell, it was already opened. Defendant supervising nurse Amrhein spoke to Plaintiff and asked Plaintiff to withdraw his grievance. Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff alleges that in response, Amrhein discontinued the supplement due to fear of a lawsuit. Plaintiff filed more grievances and complaints, and was finally told by Defendant Clark to stop.
Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied transportation to an outside hospital for a pre-arranged appointment in retaliation for filing an inmate grievance.
The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9 (citations and quotations omitted). In order to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth generalized allegations regarding the conditions of his confinement, and names 9 individual defendants. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). "A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person 'does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.'" Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). "[T]he 'requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, ...