United States District Court, N.D. California
KHARRIEM B. SHAHEED, Plaintiff,
DR. REYES; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES; DR. STEVE MILLMOND, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a California prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon Defendants and dispositive motions are scheduled.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the.... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff alleges that he injured his foot at San Quentin on January 1, 2012. His doctor ordered an M.R.I.. He went to see Defendant Dr. Steve Millmond, of Shared Imaging, who gave him a C.T. scan instead of an M.R.I.. This caused a "misdiagnos[is]" such that he needed another M.R.I. seven months later. A specialist and University of California San Francisco told Defendant Dr. Reyes at San Quentin that the M.R.I. showed that he needed surgery. Nevertheless, the California Correctional Health Care Services at San Quentin, also a defendant, still has not provided Plaintiff with surgery. When liberally construed, these allegations state cognizable claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
For the reasons set out above, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (dkt. 4) and all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants Dr. Reyes and the California Correctional Health Care Service at San Quentin State Prison, and upon Defendant Dr. Steve Millmond at Shared Imaging, 801 Phoenix Lake Ave., Streamwood, Illinois, 60107.
The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint with all attachments thereto, and this order to the ...