United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
SANJEEV BATRA, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 8) CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING
MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE
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. He has consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction. No other parties have appeared in the action.
January 30, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff's first amended complaint is before the Court
for screening. (ECF No. 8.)
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 (“CSH”),
where the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. He
names Dr. Sanjeev Batra as the sole defendant.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.
December 6, 2010 Defendant Batra recommended that Plaintiff
undergo an angiogram. Plaintiff refused. Batra retaliated by
keeping Plaintiff in the medical unit. He wrote false medical
information in Plaintiff's chart.
sought a second opinion and, on January 30, 2017, was
transferred to the Twin City Medical Center in Templeton,
California. There, Plaintiff was treated for pneumonia.
Additional tests were run on Plaintiff's heart by Dr.
Gordon, a resident, and Dr. Twicks, a cardiologist. The