The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ECF No. 1 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Carlos Alvarez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed his complaint. ECF No. 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 3 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. Id. § 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." Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 2 is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 3 "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 4 do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual 7 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 8
II. Summary of Complaint 9
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") in Coalinga, California, and Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: director of CDCR M. Cates; warden of PVSP James Yates; PVSP medical staff; CSP medical doctor J. Neubarth; and CSP nurse practitioner Saipher.
Plaintiff alleges the following. On September 30, 2005, Plaintiff's Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by correctional officers, nurses, and doctors, who were all aware of Plaintiff's injuries and did nothing. Defendants at CSP are all aware of the severe pain that Plaintiff is experiencing and are not expediting Plaintiff's chronic care program.
Plaintiff contends a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and a violation of the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his health and safety. Plaintiff requests as relief: declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and for all Defendants to provide present and future medical care.
A. Linkage and Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff names Defendants at both CSP and PVSP. Plaintiff however fails to make specific allegations against Defendants at PVSP. To state a claim under § 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). Plaintiff's claim against "PVSP medical staff" is not a cognizable person subject to § 1983 liability.
Plaintiff's allegations are also in violation of Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), persons may be joined in one action as 3 defendants if any right to relief asserted against them arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, 4 or series of transactions and occurrences, and any question of law or fact common to all defendants 5 will arise in the action. See also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Unrelated 6 claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits"). Plaintiff's allegations against CSP 7 Defendants at CSP are unrelated to his claims against PVSP Defendants and are not permitted to 8 proceed in the same ...