United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state prisoner. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint, which he has filed and which contains cognizable claims. Accordingly, defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or before June 1, 2014, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the new notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court "is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that (1) Dr. Clarene David, a physician at San Quentin State Prison, and San Quentin nurses (2) Jimenez, (3) Mary and (4) M. Mutha, were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 1983.
For the foregoing reasons, 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 in this matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon (1) Dr. Clarene David, a physician at San Quentin State Prison, and San Quentin nurses (2) Jimenez, (3) Mary and (4) M. Mutha. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General's Office.
2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 ...