United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE INTRODUCTION
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to provide adequate medical care for an abscess on his buttocks, which developed into a rectal fistula, as well as for his Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ("MRSA") infection. When liberally construed, the allegations state a cognizable claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
1. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and a copy of this order upon defendants Antis Adams, John Dunlap, Dr. Darrin Bright, Dr. Edward Birdsong, and Dr. R. Mack at SVSP and upon defendant Dr. Barron Mark F. Palmer at Natividad Medical Center in Salinas, California.
The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the amended complaint and this order to the California Attorney General's Office.
2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:
a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in ...