The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 14) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN al., THIRTY (30) DAYS
On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff Michael A. Sparkman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on October 29, 2012 and November 30, 2012, respectively, for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 5, 9.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) 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
The Second Amended Complaint names the following individuals as Defendants:
(1) John Doe #1, Warden, San Quentin State Prison (SQSP); (2) John Doe #2, Classification Service Representative (CSR), SQSP; (3) James A. Yates, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP); and (4) Frank Igbinosa, Medical Director, PVSP.
Plaintiff alleges the following:
On August 3, 2006, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issued a memorandum acknowledging the prevalence of Valley Fever at particular correctional facilities. The document identified categories of inmates who were to be removed and kept out of facilities where Valley Fever was endemic. (Compl. at 21-24.) For example, inmates with chronic lung disease requiring oxygen therapy were to be removed from, or not transferred to, PVSP. (Id. at 21-22.) According to the memorandum, "[Classification Staff Representatives] shall ensure inmates identified as being susceptible to Valley Fever organism are not endorsed to institutions located in the endemic area." (Id. at 23.) The document was addressed to Health Care Managers, Wardens, and Classification Representatives. (Id. at 21.)
Another memorandum followed on January 16, 2007. The second document was addressed to Health Care Managers and provided instructions on identifying inmates ...