United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Alton Jefferson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 12, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff's third amended complaint, filed on April 25, 2014, is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 17.)
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).
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). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. The events in his complaint are alleged to have occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff names (1) Dr. Jardini, (2) LVN Springer, (3) LVN Medley, and (4) LVN Sely as defendants.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
[Plaintiff] asserts that defendant Dr. Jardini knew that [plaintiff] would suffer serious pain and A possible debilitation/impairment if forced to walk on his already painful and swollen calves, ankles and feet as he was the one who twice diagnosed him with severe diabetic peripheral neuropathy and prescribed him the wheelchair for A two month period after returning from the hospital for the Cocci Virus (known as the Valley Fever, A virus that with an already weakened immune system could damage the limbs, etc..) [¶] Yet per request of custody/staff my wheelchair was wrongfully taken about less than A months [sic] time when I plaintiff made an earnest attempt to warn Dr. Jardini that I tried. Before the hospital and after plaintiff had requested therapy treatment from this Dr. and A previous to no avail before trying A Walker that custody was influencing Dr. Jardini to place me in. [¶] Now as to each of these L.V.N's (Springer, Medley and Sely) for five days as these nurses came in and out of the building I lived I told them of my pain and swelling, neither of them responded to examine me but stated "that I could walk, " which I told them THAT I could not because of the serious pain and swelling, yet they still denied me/plaintiff, my insulin and medications knowing that I am a Chronic Care, High Risk inmate who has been falling out due to very low and high sugar levels which also can cause serious pain and other perilous injuries, this to [sic]was known.
(ECF No. 15, p. 3.)
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
A. Federal Rule of Civil ...