United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK DKT. NOS. 3 AND 6
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terrence Brownlee alleges that medical staff at Salinas
Valley State Prison failed to provide him with
constitutionally adequate medical care. His 42 U.S.C. §
1983 civil rights complaint containing these allegations is
now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
complaint has stated claims against some, but not all, of the
named defendants. The defendants against whom valid claims
have been made shall be served, while the insufficiently
stated claims will be dismissed with leave to amend, and the
persons named whose claims are being dismissed should not be
served. If Brownlee wishes to pursue the dismissed claims, he
must file an amended complaint (containing all the
claims he wishes to pursue, including the valid ones
mentioned above, and addressing the deficiencies described
below) on or before May 15, 2017.
90-day period within which defendants may file a response to
the current complaint will not start until (1) defendants are
served with the amended complaint, if one is filed, or (2)
May 16, 2017, if no amended complaint is filed.
are to adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections
2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.
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 be liberally
construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court
“is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
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).
a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, claims medical
staff at Salinas Valley State Prison violated his Eighth
Amendment rights. He has stated claims against the following
defendants for failing to approve or administer
constitutionally adequate medical care: Z. Ahmed; S. Posson;
J. Lewis; P. Lam; J. Kalisher; M. Sweet; M. Lester; and T.
Brownlee has failed to state claims against the following
defendants: D. Lamb; K. Hoffman; D. Nananjo; E. Nuano;
Julien; V. Mills, J. Palomeno; and T. Fifield. although
Brownlee lists these names in his complaint, he fails to
provide specific allegations against ...