United States District Court, E.D. California
THIRD SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Third Screening Order
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff Carlton Fields, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 4, 2012. On April 10, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2013, and on December 30, 2013, the Court dismissed Defendant Mims, with prejudice, and granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 27, 2014.
II. Screening Requirement and Standard
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, " Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
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 Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, brings this action against Captain Rick Hill, Fresno County Jail Public Health Director Edward Moreno, M.D., and Does 1 through 8 for violating his constitutional right to medical care in 2011 while he was at the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that he was suffering from a tooth infection and he spent two weeks in agony before he was seen by a dentist. (Doc. 13, 2nd Amend. Comp., ¶¶11.) During that time, he filled out several "green slips, " begged several officers for help with receiving care, asked other inmates if they had pain medication to spare, and showed a nurse in his pod his infected tooth. ( Id. ) Plaintiff's attempts were unsuccessful and in desperation, he told a correctional officer he was having chest pain with the hope of getting to the medical clinic. ( Id. ) Plaintiff was seen by a nurse but not provided with any care. ( Id. )
Plaintiff, in another act of desperation, told a correctional officer he was in so much pain he was going to hurt someone if he did not get dental care. ( Id. ) Plaintiff was then placed in a safety cell. ( Id., ¶12.) After several hours, Plaintiff was finally taken to the dental clinic and diagnosed with an acute infection. ( Id. ) Twelve more days passed before Plaintiff's tooth was pulled, approximately four weeks after he began seeking dental care. ( Id. )
B. Dental ...