United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No.
William Ratcliff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May
5, 2016. Local Rule 302.
filed the instant complaint on April 26, 2016.
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 “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo
County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled
to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is
now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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.
names M. Spaeth (Chief Physician and Surgeon), Ogun Omolade
(medical examiner for the health care department), A. Rangel
(Registered Nurse), A. Manasrah (Primary Care Physician), and
J. Akanno (Medical Doctor), as Defendants. Plaintiff contends
that each Defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious
medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
April 2010, Plaintiff suffered from severe ulnar neuropathy
at the wrist, soft tissue inflammation, tendon swelling with
inflammation, unusual weakness and numbness. Plaintiff was
under treatment by prison health staff for this serious
medical condition, and Plaintiff was informed by Physician
Dennis G. Patterson that he would need surgery. Plaintiff was
issued a lower bunk chrono by Dennis G. Patterson.
December 8, 2012, while housed at Calipatria State Prison,
Plaintiff sustained trauma during an assault and was air
lifted to Desert Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff suffered
multiple contusions and fractures to his lower back and left
November 23, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to Kern Valley
State Prison (KVSP). While housed at KVSP, Defendant Ogun
Omolade took Plaintiff's lower bunk chrono without
Plaintiff's knowledge and without contacting Plaintiff to
explain why the chrono was no longer necessary.
December 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal
complaining about his injuries and lower bunk chrono. The
appeal was answered at the Director's Level on July 9,
2015, Log # KVSP HC 14035850. The response stated that after
review, no intervention at the Director's Level was
necessary as Plaintiff's medical condition was evaluated
and he was receiving the treatment deemed medically
22, 2015, while trying to climb into the upper bunk,
Plaintiff slipped and fell off the desk stool and sustained
an injury to the back of his head requiring stitches.
Plaintiff re-injured his lower back and upper left shoulder.
On this same date, Plaintiff completed a health care service
request form complaining about the injury to Plaintiff's
shoulder and back. Plaintiff was experiencing excruciating an
26, 2015, Plaintiff went to the drop-in clinic and explained
to the Medical Technician Assistant (MTA) A. Rangel that
Plaintiff re-injured his lower back and shoulder and would
like to see a doctor. Plaintiff knew his injuries were
serious because he could barely walk. Plaintiff explained
that there was no way he could climb or reach the upper bunk
without some sort of help. Plaintiff demanded that his lower
bunk chrono be reinstated even if it was temporally
Rangel stated that these injuries normally go away after
several months, and suggested that Plaintiff exercise and try
not to bend too much. Rather than arranging a visit to see
the doctor, Defendant Rangel declined to ...