United States District Court, E.D. California
CHARLES F. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND [ECF No. 9]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Charles F. Robertson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 12, 2012. Local Rule 302.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed June 30, 2014.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 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 on which relief may be granted, " or that "seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
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. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678; Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff alleges that the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Warden of Avenal State Prison ("ASP"), Chief Medical Officer of ASP, and Classification Staff Representative at Folsom State Prison, either directly or indirectly, allowed him to be exposed to Valley Fever in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff contends it is well known that ASP has had more cases of Valley Fever within the prison itself than the area around the prison. The Director of CDCR, Warden of ASP, Chief Medical Officer of ASP, were fully aware of the presence of Valley Fever and the affects it would have on people with pre-existing medical conditions. Plaintiff contends it is a fact that he did not have Coccidiodomycosis prior to his transfer to ASP, and he has now contracted the disease and suffers its effects. Plaintiff contends that Classification Staff Representative at Folsom State Prison may or may not have known of the Coccidiodomycosis situation at ASP, he ultimately made the transfer possible.