United States District Court, E.D. California
Rodney Glaze, Plaintiff, Pro se, CALIPATRIA, CA.
ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED AGAINST DEFENDANT SHANE ONLY OR FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF Nos. 11, 12]
Stanley A. Boone, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Rodney Glaze is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 28, 2014, the undersigned screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days or the action would be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 9.)
On December 2, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's October 28, 2014, order.
However, on December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in compliance with the Court's October 28, 2014, order. The amended complaint is dated November 26, 2014, and pursuant to the mailbox rule the complaint was deemed filed on this date. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (" the mailbox rule" established in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), applies to section 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners, thus rendering the " filing date" of a court document as the date plaintiff signs and delivers the document to prison authorities for mailing). Accordingly, the Court will vacate the order to show cause issued December 2, 2014, and simultaneously screen Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 " fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that " seeks 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff names correctional officers Stane and A. Robles, along with nurse ...