The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Kenneth Huskey ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint filed on May 11, 2011. (Doc. 1) For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
The Court is required to review matters filed by prisoners against government defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). The Court is also required to screen complaints where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court must dismiss the action or portion thereof, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). If the Court determines the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-2 28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). II.THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a 65 year old, civil detainee housed at that Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH"). (Doc. 1 at 1, 12). Plaintiff identifies Pam Ahlin, Executive Director of Coalinga State Hospital, Cliffonor 6 Allenby, Executive Director of DMH and Michele Mudgett, Director of Protection & Advocacy, Inc., 7 as defendants in this matter. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable in both their individual 8 and official capacities. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that defendants may be held liable in their official 9 capacities where they fail to train or supervise. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of inadequate "Policies, Practice and Procedures" that were not promulgated within the "Administrative Law Act," and that violate his constitutional rights. Id. at 2, 4. Defendants knew or should have known that these conditions would cause injury to Plaintiff. Id. at 4. Plaintiff indicates that Defendants' actions are "tantamount to the imposition as.punishment without adjudication." Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should have known that their policies and practices were "underground" regulations. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff indicates that as director of Protection Advocacy, Inc., Defendant Mudgett should have known that Protection Advocacy did not respond to emergency situations. Id. at 11. Plaintiff was denied medical treatment for his eyes, skin, back and other allergies and was the victim of excessive force. *fn1 Id. at 12.
Plaintiff complains he is restrained by CDCR Officers when transported to outside medical appointments. Id. at 14. Likewise, Plaintiff takes issue with the fact he is served with "out-of-date" food and because he is subject to weekly room searches. Id. Plaintiff complains that his mail has been opened by CSH staff without his consent. Id. at 15. Plaintiff further complains about the sanitation of the food provided to him and that he should be allowed to possess electronic devices and other personal property. Id. at 16-18.
"Pro se documents are to be liberally construed" and "'must be held to 'less stringent standards 3 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting 4 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). "[They] can only be dismissed for failure to state a 5 claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 6 which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. 7
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must 9 contain: (1) a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(d)(1). While a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In analyzing a pleading, the Court should set conclusory factual allegations aside, accept all non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and determine whether those non-conclusory factual allegations accepted as true state a claim for ...