United States District Court, E.D. California
SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 14)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Enrique Garza ("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 October 7, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed on October 30, 2014, is currently before the Court for screening.
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).
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 Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Dr. K. Toor; (2) Chief Physician & Surgeon Dr. N. Malakkla; (3) Chief Support Executive C. Pierini; (4) Chief Executive Officer T. Neal; and (5) Warden Ron Davis.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
K. Toor M.D. took it up on his self to refuse proper pain medication [illegible] (Medical 602 to Chief Medical Officer) Doctor Malakkla failed to make [sure] my pain medication was renewed. Doctor C. Pierini also fail to make [sure] my medication was deliver for [supervisor] Doctor Malakkla Chief Physician & Surgeon. The lack of [supervision] also fail by Doctor P. Virk CME. Last but not lest Ron Davis Warden of the prison whom hier and allow medical staff with training to the do the best medical that is paid [illegible] for by [illegible] for nothing. To this day I have not received [adequate] medical care, (Pain medication MRI or all I was Garanteed) in closed is a nother copie of [original complaint.] All of the defendants in this case past the buck to lower level medical care staff do to lazyness or rely on others to do their job or the right job them self's for that reason the health care in this prison as well as others still fail to treat inmate's properly. All medication 602 been Log #:VSP-HC-13001112 on 8-28-2013
(ECF No. 14, pp. 3-4) (as stated in original unless noted).
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting ...