United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. His complaint is before the Court for screening.
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. §
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 incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”), but complains of acts that occurred at
the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”),
California Correctional Institution (“CCI”), and
SVSP. He names the following defendants: (1) C. Cryer,
Medical CEO at SATF; (2) M. Frite, Medical CEO at SATF; (3)
M. Carrasquillo, R.N. at SATF, and (4) “et; al.”
[sic] medical staff at SATF, CCI, and SVSP.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
suffers from severe back, neck, and shoulder pain. He has
suffered extreme pain for five years. He was treated for a
time, but complained of side effects. Then,
“they” stopped treating him. As a result, his
conditions deteriorated, and he suffers constant pain.
Frite “was made aware” of Plaintiff's
condition on more than one occasion but did nothing.
Defendant Carrasquillo “usurped the authority of her
position, ” and stated that Plaintiff couldn't be
in pain because he wasn't crying. She denied
Plaintiff's requests to see a doctor. She did nothing to
claims violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate
medical care and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to
due process. He seeks money damages.