United States District Court, E.D. California
FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 (Doc. 1)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
First Screening Order
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Dewey Mitchell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 6, 2014. Plaintiff's claims arise from events which occurred at Avenal State Prison ("ASP") in Avenal, California.
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.
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, brings this action against Licensed Vocational Nurse Galey, Physician Assistant S. Hitchman, Chief Medical Officer Chapnick, and Does 1 through 5 for violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while he was at ASP in 2012.
Plaintiff alleges that on or around November 1, 2012, Defendant Galey injected him with an incorrect dosage of insulin, and he began to feel dizzy and see spots within fifteen minutes of the injection. Plaintiff returned to the B Facility medical clinic and Defendant Galey checked his blood sugar level, which was 63. Defendant Galey gave Plaintiff Glucose 15 and called the trauma center. Plaintiff began to sweat profusely and he passed out. Defendant Galey gave Plaintiff more glucose, and during Plaintiff's transportation to the trauma center, he went in and out of consciousness.
Plaintiff was not transported to an outside hospital, and he fought for his life for four hours. Plaintiff alleges that his blood sugar level was rising and falling in rapid succession, 300 one minute and 30 the next minute. Further, Plaintiff was not stabilized until 0200 hours.
Next, Plaintiff alleges that ASP medical staff failed to provide him with a special diabetic diet, and the regular diet did not provide him with proper nutrients because the nutritional value of the meals came from starch and carbohydrates. On October 5, 2012, a physician assistant at ASP told Plaintiff he was not getting a special diet, and Defendant Chapnick told him he did not need a special diabetic diet because he was on the "Heart Healthy Diet." (Comp., p. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that the Heart Healthy Diet did not provide him with ...