United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
original complaint was filed on March 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff's original complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend, for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 7.) On June 17, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff's first amended complaint is currently 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).
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).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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.
AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
an inmate in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at California State
Prison (“CSP”) Corcoran, brings this civil rights
action against Defendant correctional officials employed by
the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following
individual Defendants: Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Dr. Wang,
M.D.; Dr. Moon, M.D.; Dr. Ulit, M.D.
claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
and that they violated his rights to due process under the
alleges that on March 4, 2013, he sought treatment for severe
pain, tingling, and numbness in his right hand. Plaintiff was
ultimately diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in September
2013, by Dr. Smith and Dr. Alade, both of whom were
orthopedic specialists and both of whom recommended surgery.
CMO Dr. Wang, a general practitioner, denied or cancelled the
recommendation for surgery, and directed Dr. Ulit and Dr.
Moon to treat Plaintiff with aspirin. The only possible
reason for this was cost. Dr. Wang resisted all medical
appeals and opposed surgery. Dr. Wang was the “medical
professional who most directly refused ...