United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TIGAR United States District Judge.
a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional
Training Facility (CTF), filed this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against two
CTF doctors. The Court identified various deficiencies in
plaintiff's complaint and dismissed it with leave to
amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (FAC), in
which he no longer names the doctor defendants but instead
names two CTF nurses as defendants. The FAC is now before the
Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
following allegations are taken from the FAC:
November 5, 2015, while in class, plaintiff began
experiencing severe abdominal pain and vomiting. His
instructor directed him to return to his housing unit. His
housing unit floor officer then directed plaintiff to report
to Central Medical. Defendant Nurse Steinhaus attended to
plaintiff and conducted a physical plan. Nurse Steinhaus then
consulted with CTF Dr. Mindoro by telephone. Dr. Mindoro
ordered a gastrointestinal (GI) cocktail and instructed
plaintiff to drink extra fluids, consume light chicken soup,
and place a sick call request if symptoms did not resolve by
the next morning.
abdominal pain continued for two more days. On November 7,
2015, he returned to Central Medical, where he was examined
by defendant Nurse Mandich. Nurse Mandich consulted with CTF
Dr. Branch by telephone. Plaintiff was again given a GI
cocktail along with intravenous fluids for dehydration and
medication for his diarrhea.
November 9, 2015, plaintiff returned to Central Medical where
he was examined by CTF Dr. Sweet. Dr. Sweet ordered x-rays,
which showed gallstones. Plaintiff was transported to
Natividad Medical Center for surgery.
Standard of Review
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the
court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any
claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must,
however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only “ ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.' ” Erickson v.
Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 1974.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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