United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Earl Dixie ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 11, 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).
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. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations 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 the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at Coalinga State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Correctional Officer R. Castro; (2) Correctional Sergeant Valdez; and (3) Correctional Lieutenant S. Rousseau. Plaintiff sues defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that he is morbidly obese and suffers from diabetes. On November 16, 2011, at about 7:30 a.m., Defendant Castro ordered Plaintiff to the lower "A" section shower. Plaintiff informed Defendant Castro that he required a medically authorized walking cane, leg brace and compression socks. Defendant Castro denied Plaintiff's request for his authorized medical appliances.
Plaintiff handed Defendant Castro a copy of a comprehensive accommodation chrono, CDC 7410. After reading the CDC 7410, Defendant Castro handed the document back to Plaintiff and denied Plaintiff's request to secure his cane, leg brace and compression socks. Plaintiff again informed Defendant Castro of his need for compression socks and glucose medical issued tube. Defendant Castro denied Plaintiff's request for glucose tube and compression socks.
Defendant Castro and the shift sergeant forced Plaintiff to stand in the lower "A" section shower without access to a toilet facility for a period exceeding 4-5 hours. Two hours after being placed in the lower "A" section shower, Plaintiff informed the shift sergeant that he could not withhold his bowels and needed to use the toilet. Plaintiff's request was denied. Plaintiff could not restrain himself and discharged feces into his undershorts. Defendant Castro denied Plaintiff access to a towel and soap to clean the bowel discharge off of his body and clothing. Defendant Castro forced Plaintiff to remain with discharged feces in his shorts and running down his legs for a period exceeding 5 hours. Plaintiff contends that he suffered severe leg and back pain for more than 2 days because of the events. Plaintiff also contends that he concealed verbal abuse that Defendant Castro directed to him.
Plaintiff asserts claims for discrimination, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference.
A. Supervisory ...