United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
E. MCDERMOTT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Dwayne Micenheimer (“Plaintiff”), a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”).
accordance with the provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the Court must screen the FAC before
ordering service to determine whether the action: (1) is
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). This
screening is governed by the following standards:
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to
state a claim for two reasons: (1) the plaintiff fails to
state a cognizable legal theory; or (2) the plaintiff has
alleged insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a complaint
states a claim on which relief may be granted, allegations of
material fact are taken as true and construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1988). However,
“the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a
plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A]
liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
a complaint "does not need detailed factual
allegations" to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must
provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (rejecting the traditional “no
set of facts” standard set forth in Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). The complaint must contain
factual allegations sufficient to rise above the
“speculative level, ” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555, or the merely possible or conceivable. Id.
at 557, 570.
put, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial
plausibility when the complaint presents enough facts
“to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). This standard is not a probability requirement, but
“it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A
complaint that pleads facts that are merely consistent with
liability stops short of the line between possibility and
pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be
construed liberally to afford plaintiff the benefit of any
doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept, 839
F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that the
deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, pro se
litigants are generally entitled to a notice of a
complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend
prior to the dismissal of an action. Id. at 623.
Only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot
be cured by amendment should the complaint be dismissed
without leave to amend. Id.; Weilburg v.
Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007).
careful review and consideration of the Complaint under the
relevant standards and for the reasons discussed below, the
Court finds that the Complaint must be DISMISSED WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.
claims arise out of his confinement at California State
Prison Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”). He names
“CDCR Personnel In Their Individual Capacity” as
Defendants in the caption of the Complaint. (Complaint at 1.)
In the body of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff names P.
Finander, S. Morris, and P. Shank as Defendants.
(Id. at 3.) All Defendants are sued in their
individual capacities. (Id.)
alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of serious harm to him, in violation of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied appropriate medical
care, forced to endure severe pain, denied adequate therapy,
forced to walk with a buckling right knee with no cane, left
to develop a crippling hand disability, left to develop a
deformity in his shoulder and hand, and forced to go without
ice packs. (Id.) He also references a “data
breach.” (Id.) Rather than articulate the
facts that give rise to his deliberate indifference claim,
Plaintiff attaches numerous pages of medical and other
PLAINTIFF MUST NAME ALL DEFENDANTS ...