United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND(ECF
NO. 1)
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared in the action.
Plaintiff's
complaint is now before the Court for screening.
I.
Screening Requirement
The
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,
malicious, ” or that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
II.
Pleading Standard
Section
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
To
state a claim under § 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); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
at 677-78.
III.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff
is incarcerated at California Correctional Institution
(“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California, where the acts
giving rise to his complaint occurred. He names Dr. El Said
as Defendant.
Plaintiff's
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
On June
8, 2015, Plaintiff was assaulted by CCI Correctional
Officers.[1] Afterward, Defendant came to examine him.
Defendant gave Plaintiff a dirty shirt to wipe the dirt and
blood off of him and stated, “It's superficial, the
next time I come to examine you, you'll get a prostate
exam.” Later that night, Plaintiff refused treatment
from the nurse due to his fear of being sexually assaulted.
That same night, he was sent to a different yard and
requested medical attention. He was seen by medical staff and
diagnosed with blunt head trauma, ...