United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that during a visit to the medical facility
at California State Prison, Sacramento (CSP-Sac), he was
placed in a holding cage reserved for administrative
segregation for two hours until the medical staff had time to
see him. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 4.) Before the court are
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 5) and consideration of plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge. (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the
court grants plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismisses plaintiff's complaint with leave
initiated this action in June 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff's statement of claim consists of a single
paragraph describing his visit to the prison medical facility
on June 3, 2016. (Id. at 2, 4.) Plaintiff describes
having to go to the facility because of high blood pressure
and dizziness. He states that defendant Richmond took his
blood pressure and then instructed defendant Simas to place
plaintiff in an administrative segregation holding cage for
two hours until defendants had time to address
plaintiff's needs. Plaintiff's request for relief
seeks a transfer to a medical facility and money damages.
(Id.) Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on July 21, 2016. (ECF No. 8.)
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1).
Plaintiff is currently without funds. Accordingly, the court
will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated for monthly
payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's
income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account.
These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the
appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the
amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the
filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. See 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations
as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
(1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, to survive
dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se complaint
must contain more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57
(2007). In other words, “[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). Furthermore, a claim upon which the
court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Attachments to a complaint
are considered to be part of the complaint for purposes of a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hal Roach
Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555
n.19 (9th Cir. 1990).
described above, plaintiff's statement of claim merely
recounts an incident that occurred on June 3, 2017. (ECF No.
1 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff's request for relief seeks monetary
damages and a transfer to a medical facility. (Id.)
Plaintiff's complaint does not state the legal basis on
which he is pursuing this action. (Id.)
Additionally, the complaint does not describe how each
defendant was involved, as defendants Baughman, ...