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. 4 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Allen Asjes ("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 March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Northern District of California. ECF No. 4. On June 28, 2012, the case was transferred to this Court.
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. 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). 2
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 3 is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 4 "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 5 do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 6 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a 7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual 8 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 9
Plaintiff was incarcerated at North Kern State Prison ("NKSP") in Delano, California, and Wasco State Prison ("WSP") in Wasco, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: NKSP medical chief medical officer; WSP medical chief medical officer; WSP doctor Sao; and WSP warden P. L. Vasquez.
Plaintiff alleges the following. In 2008, while incarcerated at NKSP, Plaintiff's skin tested as positive for tuberculosis ("TB"). Plaintiff was partially treated, and later removed from that treatment by the CDCR's CMO staff. Plaintiff was told to inform anyone who attempted a TB ppd*fn1 or treatment that Plaintiff was a TB 32.*fn2 Plaintiff was paroled in the community for 2 years until he was re-incarcerated. Plaintiff discovered that because of his partial TB treatment Plaintiff may have developed a type of TB that is either extremely resistant or incurable. Plaintiff was unaware of this information, putting greater Los Angeles, his friends, and his loved ones at risk for contracting his TB.
Plaintiff requests as relief: monetary damages, and treatment for his alleged TB. Plaintiff also requests a donation to TB education.
A. Linkage and Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff names Defendants at both NKSP and WSP. Plaintiff however fails to make specific allegations against Defendants at WSP. 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 2 by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 3 2006). Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding any Defendants at WSP. 4
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 6 defendants if any right to relief asserted against them arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, 7 or series of transactions and occurrences, and any question of law or fact common to all defendants 8 will arise in the action. See also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Unrelated 9 claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits"). Plaintiff's allegations against NKSP Defendants are unrelated to his claims against WSP Defendants and are not permitted to proceed in the same ...