United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On February 26, 2016, defendant Nurse Wang's motion
to dismiss was granted, and plaintiff's complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) Now pending is
plaintiff's first amended complaint for screening.
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.
relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate housed at Folsom
State Prison (“FSP”) in Folsom, California. He
brings suit against Nurse Wang and the FSP Health Care
August 17, 2013, plaintiff told Nurse Wang that his jaw is
swollen, he has a toothache, and he is in terrible pain.
Nurse Wang responded that there is nothing she can do and
directed plaintiff to file a medical request. Plaintiff then
suffered four days of pain, headaches and little sleep before
he was treated for an abscessed tooth. Plaintiff claims
dental emergencies require immediate care and not the
submission of a medical request, and he accuses the Health
Care Manager III of failing to properly supervise staff.
seeks damages in the amount of $40, 000.
prisoner's Eighth Amendment claims arise in the context
of medical care, the prisoner must allege and prove
“acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). An
Eighth Amendment medical claim has two elements: “the
seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature
of the defendant's response to that need.”
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d ...