FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SCREEN AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 15 & 16) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")), and 29 U.S.C.§ 794 (§504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA")) on April 5, 2010. A first amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2011. (ECF No. 15.)
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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).
Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and is incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants CDCR; D. Foston, Chief Inmate Appeal Breach; M.D. Biter, Chief Deputy Warden; R. Grissom, Associate Warden, F. Ozaeta, Correctional Sergeant; Matthew Cate, Secretary of CDCR; and M. Bostanjian, Psychiatrist, alleging violations of (1) the Eighth Amendment; (2) Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the RA; and (3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff's complaint contains multiple incidents that occur over a period of several years, against multiple defendants, and appear to be unrelated. The Court will not summarize all of the allegations in the first amended complaint since it entails a variety of apparently unrelated claims that would not present a cohesive basis for analysis.
For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. In the paragraphs that follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to the claims. Plaintiff should carefully review the standards and amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are cognizable.