The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Chatan Maultsby, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on January 6, 2012, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). He names United States Penitentiary, Atwater, Warden H. A. Rios, Captain S. Keilman, Nurse Keilman and Correctional Officer Lt. Morgan as Defendants.
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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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.
To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendantpersonally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana.
The events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California.
Plaintiff alleges that on June 4, 2011, he was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"). During the next three weeks, he requested sanitation supplies from Defendant Morgan. He did not receive any supplies. Plaintiff contends that the SHU is "extremely filthy" and threatened his well-being. Compl. 3. Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendant Morgan's failure to pass out sanitation supplies, he began breaking out with rashes on his legs, arms, private area and face.
Plaintiff submitted several requests to Defendant Nurse Keilman for medical care. He alleges that Defendant Keilman arbitrarily refused medical treatment. As time passed, Plaintiff's condition became worse and he suffered both mentally and physically.
On July 4, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an Informal Resolution Form regarding the failure to pass out sanitation supplies. Exh. D. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Morgan and Defendant Captain Keilman lied in answering his Informal Resolution by stating that supplies are passed out every Sunday. He also alleges that it took them three weeks to respond.
On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff alleges that conditions and treatment in the SHU were so inhumane that suspension of recreation was necessary due to the large amount of inmates requesting medical treatment.
Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of the Eighth Amendment based on "medical neglect" and inhumane conditions in the SHU; (2) a violation of his First Amendment right to ...