United States District Court, Eastern District of California
CHARLES F. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM AND DEFENDANTS FOUND COGNIZABLE [ECF No. 16]
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 April 7, 2014. Local Rule 302.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs second amended complaint, filed November 14, 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 "[fjhreadbare 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 Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs 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 names M.D. Stainer, Director of Adult Institutions of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), C. Wofford, Warden of Avenal State Prison (ASP), and Ellen Greenman, Chief Medical Officer at ASP, as Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges it is known that ASP has had more cases and deaths from Valley Fever within the prison than the town and area surrounding the prison. M.D. Stainer, C. Wofford, and Ellen Greenman are responsible for the safety of the institutions and are responsible for the health of each inmate. They were aware that Valley Fever has a serious effect on individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. It is known that CDCR was well informed and ordered by the Court to address the Valley Fever problem, but instead sought other ways to work around the problem rather than shut down the prison for the safety of the inmates and staff.
Plaintiff was ordered transferred to ASP, and prior to his arrival at the prison he did not have Valley Fever. However, five and a half months after this transfer, he was hospitalized with Valley Fever and is now battling the illness. Plaintiff would not have contracted the disease had he not been transferred to ASP.
Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages and full ...