The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING TITLE 15 CLAIM AND DEFENDANTS CDCR AND PVSP WITH PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING NEGLIGENCE AND MEDICAL CARE CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff James Suknaich is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. Defendants Lozano and Brazleton removed this action from Fresno County Superior Court on August 27, 2012. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The parties consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible to survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), seeks redress for the violation of his rights under federal and state law, arising out of an incident in which Plaintiff was attacked by another inmate and seriously injured.
Plaintiff first alleges a violation of Sections 3270 and 3271 of the California Code of Regulations, which mandate inmate safety. Plaintiff alleges that staff failed to provide him with adequate security as mandated by the regulations and he was attacked as a result.
Plaintiff next alleges that there was a verbal confrontation between inmate Wolfbrandt and Defendant Lozano during which Wolfbrandt threatened to harm someone if he was not taken off the yard. Defendant Lozano told him to go ahead and walked away smiling. Plaintiff was subsequently brutally attacked. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lozano failed to follow proper procedure by logging Wolfbrandt's conduct and threat, and Lozano's negligence contributed to Plaintiff's injuries.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that following the attack, his life-threatening injuries were not treated with the requisite standard governing professional ethics, ...