United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED ORDER THAT THIS
ACTION COUNT AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 16, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 6.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's June 17, 2016,
first amended complaint, filed in response to the May 17,
2016, order dismissing the original complaint with leave to
amend. (ECF No. 9.)
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)(ii).
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)). 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 citations omitted).
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 678-79;
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.
an inmate in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at California State
Prison Solano, brings this action against Defendant
correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran State
Prison, where the events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names
the following individual Defendants: Nareddy Chinnapa, M.D.;
Huu Nguyen, M.D.; Wayne Ulit, M.D. Plaintiff claims that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
allegations stem from his diagnosis of high cholesterol, and
the alleged failure of Defendants to provide Plaintiff with
the treatment regimen that Plaintiff believes is appropriate.
The Court dismissed the original complaint in this action
because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state
a claim for relief under section 1983. Specifically, in the
order dismissing the original complaint, the Court noted that
although Plaintiff sincerely believed that he suffered from a
dangerous medical condition that was not being adequately
addressed by Defendants, he did not allege any facts
indicating that any of the Defendants knew of an objectively
serious medical condition, and chose a course of treatment in
conscious disregard of that risk.
first amended complaint that is now before the Court,
Plaintiff alleges that he was first diagnosed with high
cholesterol in 1996 while in CDCR custody. Since then,
Plaintiff has been treated with medication. Plaintiff was
transferred to Corcoran State Prison in 2007. Plaintiff
alleges that during his time at Corcoran, up to the filing of
the complaint on October 1, 2015, his cholesterol level has
been "dangerously high." (ECF No. 10, p. 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that the only treatment that Defendants
have been willing to consider is medication. Specifically,
Plaintiff has been prescribed Atorvastatin. Plaintiff alleges
that the Atorvastatin has been ineffective in lowering his
cholesterol. Plaintiff has advised Defendants that he has a
family history of heart disease.
alleges that, at some point, Defendant Chinnapa ordered lab
tests "as a result of Plaintiff requesting it, and those
results showed that Plaintiff's cholesterol was very
high." (Id.) Defendant Chinnapa interviewed
Plaintiff regarding the test results, and advised Plaintiff
that "his cholesterol was fine." (Id.)
February 8, 2013, another blood test was ordered by Defendant
Nguyen. Plaintiff alleges that the test results showed that
Plaintiff's cholesterol levels were even higher.
Plaintiff was interviewed by Dr. Nguyen, who advised
Plaintiff that his cholesterol levels were under control, and
that the medication he had been prescribed was effective. Dr.
Nguyen ordered another blood test on June 6, 2013. Plaintiff
alleges that the test results again showed that his
cholesterol levels were ...