United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) His complaint is before
the Court for screening.
forma pauperis statute provides, “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).
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).
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).
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.
is detained at Coalinga State Hospital, where the acts giving
rise to his complaint occurred. He names Alexandra Pullion as
the sole defendant in this action. His allegations may be
summarized essentially as follows:
10, 2016, Plaintiff experienced chest pain. He approached
Defendant regarding his pain, and Defendant refused him
treatment. Plaintiff was forced to endure his chest pain
“until it ended.” Plaintiff was unable to
function for a “pur longed” amount of time.
seeks money damages and injunctive relief.
Fourteenth Amendment provides the standard for evaluating the
constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have
been involuntarily committed to a state facility. Rivera
v. Rogers, 224 Fed.Appx. 148, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2007);
see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 312 (1982).
Such individuals are “entitled to more considerate
treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are designed to punish.”
Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. In determining
whether the constitutional rights of an involuntarily
committed individual have been violated, the court must