United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 1)
Martin Ware is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint,
filed October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
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
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.
was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison around April 10,
2013. (Compl. 5, ECF No. 1.) About August 18,
2015, Plaintiff submitted a health care services request
seeking medical treatment for staphylococcus-aureus
(hereafter “staph”) symptoms. (Id.)
Plaintiff had an open lesion in his mouth that caused him to
have pain and difficulty swallowing for the next twenty-four
hours. (Id. at 7.) Around August 21, 2015, Plaintiff
asked Defendant Manasrah to give him penicillin to treat the
infection and his request was denied. (Id.)
Plaintiff also requested to be referred to a specialist so
that he could receive oral surgery and that request was
denied. (Id.) Defendant Manasrah told Plaintiff that
since he had the condition for over fifteen years he was to
gargle with salt water. (Id.) Plaintiff asked to be
provided with salt from the kitchen due to his indigence, but
his request was denied. (Id.) Defendant Manasrah
scheduled Plaintiff for a follow-up appointment in two weeks.
August 21, 2015, Plaintiff sent a confidential letter to
Amber Norris requesting information on prison compliance with
treating staph infections. (Id. at 8.) On August 24,
2015, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Bitter summarizing
the current medical issue. (Id.) Plaintiff requested
that Defendant Bitter review the operational procedures for
treating methicillin-resistant staph infections.
(Id.) Plaintiff's request was denied.
saw Defendant Manasrah for an initial examination on
September 4, 2015. (Id. at 7.) Defendant Manasrah
told Plaintiff that she could see that his throat was swollen
and the lesions had returned, but that his throat was always
swollen. (Id.) Defendant Manasrah referred Plaintiff
to his regular treating physician. (Id. at 8.)
September 10, 2015, Defendant Pineda wrote a response to the
request Plaintiff had sent to Defendant Bitter stating that
the medical staff will continue to make medical assessment of
Plaintiff's condition and treatment. (Id.)
filed an inmate appeal and requested that Defendant Sao
authorize photographs to be taken of the lesions.
(Id. at 9.) The appeal stated that there were
several lesions inside the mouth and some kind of bacterial
infection that had previously been diagnosed as staph.
(Id.) Defendant Sao denied the request stating there
were no cameras in the clinical treatment center and that the
lesions only needed to be examined. (Id.) Defendant
Sao looked in Plaintiff's mouth and told Plaintiff that
he was able to see the lesion. (Id.) When asked if
he was having pain, Plaintiff told Defendant Sao that he was
having difficulty swallowing liquids. (Id.)
Defendant Soa took a swab of the lesion and said he would
prescribe Plaintiff penicillin and pain relievers for
Plaintiff's throat. (Id. at 10.)
October 14, 2015, Plaintiff sent a letter summarizing the
medical issues to Defendant Bitter. (Id.) Plaintiff
requested that Defendant Bitter review the inmate appeal
addressed by Defendant Sao. (Id.) Plaintiff's
request was denied. (Id.)
October 16, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a request to receive
the pain relievers to treat his throat pain. (Id.)
On October 18, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a request to receive
pain relievers. (Id. at 11.) On October 21, 2015,
Plaintiff submitted a third request to receive pain
October 22, 2015, Defendant Pineda issued a decision
addressing Plaintiff's letter to Defendant Bitter
informing Plaintiff that issues with his medical care were