United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PLEADING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 7) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE (ECF No. 6)
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's Complaint for screening, (2) Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint, and (3) Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this matter with Cranford v. Ahlin, et al., 1:14-cv-01131 MJS, and Cranford v. Dirige, et al., 1:14-cv-01101 BAM.
I. THE COMPLAINT
A. Screening Requirement
The in forma pauperis statutes provide that "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, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
B. Pleading Standard
To state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
A 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50.
C. Summary of Complaint
Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Janessa Seats, Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH") Psychological Technician, and (2) Eboney Smith, CSH Psychological Technician.
Plaintiff's pleading is difficult to understand. He appears to claim that he was the victim of a racially motivated assault by another patient who opened a door that hit and slightly injured Plaintiff's shoulder as Plaintiff was walking down a hallway.
Defendants observed this assault, but took no action to protect Plaintiff or respond to his injury. They improperly attributed the incident to "horseplay." (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 4:23.)
Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the California Office of Patients' Rights. That Office took no action on the administrative complaint because the allegations were not sufficient to show an assault occurred and that staff could have prevented the incident.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and revocation of Defendants' ...