United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Danny Le ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on October 29, 2014, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 13.)
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).
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 California State Prison, Corcoran, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Warden Davey and Appeals Coordinator D. Goree as defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a mentally ill inmate in segregation suffering discomfort due to his antipsychotic meds and being exposed to extreme heat from poor ventilation and lack of remedies to help him deal with the heat. According to Plaintiff's doctor, his meds, which are also known as heat meds, interfere with his body's response to heat. When the temperature exceeds 90° outside, Plaintiff may see dots, feel faint, cramp up, hallucinate, get dizzy, sweat, dehydrate, or have dry mouth, blurry vision, and nausea. Plaintiff alleges that he has fainted several times resulting in injuries such as bumps, knots, lacerations and abrasions.
Plaintiff asserts that he filed 602 complaints asking for remedies to help him deal with the heat. In his 602s, Plaintiff laid out the side effects of heat meds. Plaintiff spoke to Property Officer Scalia about having a fan. Officer Scalia said that he could not give Plaintiff a fan unless the warden approved. On both 602s, Plaintiff requested that Warden Davey read the appeals. On September 14, 2014, about a week after Plaintiff filed his 602, Plaintiff sent a letter to Warden Davey with the side effects, his situation and the remedies, such as a fan, ice or an extra shower. Warden Davey did not respond.
Plaintiff further alleges that he filed an emergency 602 regarding this matter on August 25, 2014. When he did not receive a response, Plaintiff filed another emergency 602 on September 6, 2014. Plaintiff laid out the side effects and how Plaintiff and his psych had already talked to Property Officer Scalia about letting him have a fan.
On September 9, 2014, Appeals Coordinator D. Goree rejected Plaintiff's emergency 602 and instructed Plaintiff to submit an inmate request to Scalia. Plaintiff alleges that emergency appeals include circumstances involving a serious and imminent threat to health and safety. Plaintiff alleges that his 602 was clearly an emergency, but Appeals Coordinator Goree did not grant the 602. Appeals Coordinator Goree told Plaintiff to fill out an inmate request to Property Officer Scalia first and then continue the process to Scalia's supervisor for review and response before resubmitting the 602. Plaintiff alleges that this process would take at least a month to complete during which Plaintiff would be suffering. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Goree knew this, but told him to do it so that he would suffer. Plaintiff asserts that he has been having a hard time getting his appeals processed ever since he complained to the Warden about the appeals coordinators. Plaintiff asserts that the Appeals Coordinators would retaliate against him by finding any reason to reject his appeals.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory ...