United States District Court, Eastern District of California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ECF NO., 17 CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9.) No other parties have appeared in the action.
The Court screened Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1), dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiffs first amended complaint (ECF No. 13) also was dismissed with leave to amend (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff sought, and on October 14, 2014 received, a ninety day extension of time to file his second amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion First Ameanded Complaint." (ECF No. 17.)
Although styled as a motion, Plaintiffs October 29, 2014 filing appears to be his second amended complaint, and the Court will construe it as such.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The in forma pauperis statute provides, "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).
II. PLEADING STANDARD
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id., Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
III. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH"), where the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. Plaintiff names Briandon Price as Defendant.
Plaintiffs factual allegations, in their entirety, are as follows:
Plaintiff was assalted by several fellow patients and the plaintiff filed several patients complaints in hopes of receveing some sort of relief plaintiff also wrote to the attorney general also seeking relief in bouuth matters nothing was done plaintiff also requested to be seen by the housing unit doctor of which was granted ...