United States District Court, E.D. California
Archie Cranford, Plaintiff, Pro se, COALINGA, CA.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 20)
Barbara A. McAuliffe, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Archie Cranford (" Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff initiated this action on July 14, 2014. On October 7, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 20, 2014. On October 28, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to amend. On December 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file his amended complaint. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled " Motion for Second Amended Complaint." (ECF No. 20.) Although titled as a motion, the substance of the document appears to be Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will screen the document as a second amended complaint.
I. Screening Requirement
" 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, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth " sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
II. Allegations in Complaint
Plaintiff names Teressita Dirige " and
company" as defendants.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
In August of 2013 defendant Teressita Dirige and company failed to
adequately protect plaintiff from being assaulted and injured by fellow patients and once the attack had ended all failed to provide protection of future attacks and provide prompt
proficient professional medical care all the defendants where hired and
assigned to summons adequate medical care is rendered and plaintiff received the medical as states in (youngberg) and that the protection continues once the threat to plaintiffs
safety has passed but plaintiff did not receive the medical care that he was
seriously in need of as well as the safety what should have been done was once the medical care
had been rendered plaintiff should have been reassigned and assigned a single room and
security personal assigned and stationed in inside the room had these
assignments been put into place the construction would have been satisfied and the plaintiff as well but
neither was done.
(ECF No. 20, p. 1) (unedited text). Plaintiff seeks 1, 295 billion in damages.
Despite multiple opportunities to amend, Plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a claim. Accordingly, this action will ...