The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Cleofas Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 28, 2012. Plaintiff names Dr. Bopari, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Atienza, Dr. Abdou and the Avenal State Prison ("ASP") Medical Department 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.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; 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, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is incarcerated at ASP, where the events at issue occurred.
Plaintiff alleges that in February 2010, Defendant Grimm had his personal wheelchair confiscated, which forced him to walk with a prosthetic leg. Plaintiff was not accustomed to using the prosthetic and received sores on his amputated leg. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grimm based the decision on his personal opinion that Plaintiff did not need the wheelchair and could use his prosthetic leg.
In May 2011, while attempting to walk with his prosthetic leg, Plaintiff fell and injured himself. In July 2011, his wheelchair was returned to him.
Plaintiff explains that he only speaks Spanish and he is therefore unable to communicate his problems to medical staff. Plaintiff alleges that he was examined by Defendant Abdou numerous times, but Defendant Abdou did not request the presence of an interpreter so that Plaintiff could explain his injuries and symptoms. The caused Plaintiff to go without medical treatment and endure pain.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bopari ordered that certain medical tests be conducted, but did not ensure that the ASP Medical Department doctors were thorough.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Atienza's examinations and methods of treatment "were timely and long, causing the Plaintiff to have to endure additional and unnecessary pain." Compl. 4.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference "when it came to the manner, methods and handling of the Plaintiff's medical treatments." Compl. 4. He alleges ...