United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against medical officials at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”). After an initial review, the Court
found the complaint was attempting to state a claim under the
Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs. (Docket No. 14 at 2-3.) However, Plaintiff
failed to identify a specific individual as a defendant whose
actions caused the violation. (Id. at 3.) The Court
also advised Plaintiff that a claim of “medical
neglect” was insufficient to make out a violation of
the Eighth Amendment, and that any such claim would be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Id. at
3-4.) Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Docket No.
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 id.
§ 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. 1988).
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
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
claims that on November 24, 2014, he injured his left hand at
SVSP. (Am. Compl. at 3.) He brought it to the attention of
Defendants Dr. N. Harris and Dr. L. Gamboa “with
negative results.” (Id.) About four months
later, he was sent to an outside hospital where it was
discovered that he had a serious injury to his left hand but
since “it had been so long, ” there was
“nothing they could do.” (Id.) Plaintiff
received injections in his left hand as well as medication.
(Id.) Plaintiff claims that he suffers chronic pain
and that they continue to deny him proper medical attention.
(Id.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a
cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
names the CDCR as a defendant “in the official
capacity” but has made no specific allegations of
wrongdoing. Accordingly, the CDCR is DISMISSED from this
reasons state above, the Court orders as follows:
Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request
for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of
Service of Summons, a copy of the amended complaint, (Docket
No. 15), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order
upon Defendants Dr. N. Harris and Dr. L. Gamboa at Salinas
Valley State Prison (P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020).
The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
other Defendants are DISMISSED from this
action Plaintiff has made no specific claims against them.
Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving
unnecessary costs of service of the summons and the
complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being
notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of
Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so,
they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless
good cause shown for their failure to sign and return the
waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed
as if Defendants had been served on the date that the waiver
is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B),
Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer
before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for
waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than
would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.)
Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the
foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the
duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the