The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Ray Medina ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No other parties have appeared.
Plaintiff filed this action on October 15, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
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 Atlantic 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.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"). Plaintiff has been housed at a number of other California prisons. Plaintiff's claims arise from incidents at several of those prisons. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: 1) J. Kelso, the appointed medical receiver for California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's ("CDCR's") prisons, 2) L.D. Zamora, chief of California prison health care services, 3) John Does 1-4, Wardens at KVSP, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), Folsom State Prison ("FSP"), and California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), and 4) D. Couto Da Silva, contract clinical psychologist at KVSP.
Plaintiff's allegations are as follows: When Plaintiff was housed at RJD in April 2008 his cell-mate attempted to rape him.
(Compl. at 6.) Plaintiff did not get proper care after the incident and attempted to commit suicide. (Id. at 7.) He was later transferred to CCI and started receiving treatment for his mental health issues. (Id.) Plaintiff was transferred to FSP's "psych security unit" and he continued to receive treatment for his mental health conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff was eventually transferred to the general population at FSP, but he assaulted two inmates because his aggression, anxiety, and paranoia was not being treated. (Compl. at 8.) Plaintiff was transferred back to RJD where Plaintiff's medications were taken away and he was placed on a reduced treatment plan. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff then was transferred back to CCI where he tried to kill himself again. (Id.) Plaintiff was transferred to FSP where he was diagnosed with a number of mental conditions and received proper treatment. (Id.) Supervisors at FSP fired Plaintiff's doctor once they found out she was doing "non-formulary groups." (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiff was transferred to the general population at KVSP and placed under the care of another physician who attempted to treat him. (Compl. at 10.) However, a supervisor reduced Plaintiff's level of care because some of Plaintiff's conditions were not authorized for treatment by the CDCR. (Id. at 10-11.) The only on-going treatment Plaintiff is allowed to receive consists of high does of medication or placement in the Security Housing Unit. (Id. at 11.)
On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff attended a treatment session with Defendant Silva. (Compl. at 12.) Defendant Silva told Plaintiff she did not agree with Plaintiff's earlier diagnoses and she could only refer him to a psychiatrist for medication. (Id.)
CDCR clinicians are told to not investigate or diagnose PTSD, and most clinicians follow these instructions. (Compl. at 13.) As a result, many inmates with PTSD are placed in the Security Housing Unit rather than being provided with treatment. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care has been violated. (Compl. at 14-15.)
Plaintiff asks that the Court issue an injunction directing that Plaintiff be provided with treatment for his PTSD, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages. (Compl. at 16.)