United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF THIRTY-DAY
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. Plaintiff has consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c).Pending before the Court is
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 27, 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 “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 Wasco State Prison,
brings this civil rights action against Defendant Deputy
Dillard, an employee of the Kern County Sheriff’s
claim stems from an incident on March 14, 2016, when he was
transported from the Lerdo Pretrial Detention Facility to an
outside clinic for an eye examination. Plaintiff alleges that
he was seated on a stool which rolled out from under him.
Plaintiff fell off of the stool, injuring his right arm and
elbow. Plaintiff was taken to Kern Medical Center. Plaintiff
alleges that “they determined that my arm was fractured
and needed care since I have diabetes it was determined
nothing can be done being that I could lose my arm in extreme
pain.” (ECF No. 1, ¶ IV.)