United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
JESSICA SANTIAGO, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF NO. 10) CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
initiated this action on July 25, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On
November 1, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) On February 13,
2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended
complaint (“FAC”) and found it again stated no
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was granted thirty
days to amend. (Id.) His March 1, 2017 second
amended complaint (“SAC”) is now before the Court
for screening. (ECF No. 10.) He has consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 3.) No other party has appeared.
in 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. §
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.
is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”).
Plaintiff's SAC names Jessica Santiago “et
al.” as Defendants in the caption of his complaint.
Plaintiff does not expressly name the other Defendants. He
also does not set forth the facts giving rise to his claims.
Rather, Plaintiff intersperses his factual allegations with
legal arguments asserting that his original complaint was
amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, and should
be complete in and of itself. Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012). The
following factual allegations are therefore drawn solely from
Plaintiff's SAC. The facts contained within
Plaintiff's prior complaints are therefore not repeated
herein. (The undersigned has, however, reviewed them and
concluded that consideration of them would not, In any event,
change the outcome of this case.)
April 5, 2016, Defendant Santiago, a former Unit 6
supervisor, placed Plaintiff's access hall card on
medical hold as punishment and in retaliation for Plaintiff
exercising his “Fifth Amendment” right to refuse
medication. Plaintiff refused his medications because they
caused adverse side effects. Santiago did not conduct a
disciplinary hearing before deactivating the access card.
Plaintiff was thus denied: 1) written notice of the charges
against him; 2) 24 hours advanced notice of the April 5
“hearing” during which Santiago disabled the
card; 3) a written statement by Santiago stating her reasons
for disabling the card; 4) the right to call witnesses; and
5) staff assistance to defend his case. Santiago acted alone
when she determined that Plaintiff was guilty of not taking
his medications and placed his access card on medical hold.
February 17, 2017 (after the instant case was filed), Dr.
Chand threatened to falsely report that Plaintiff was not
competent to make his own medical decisions in refusing to
take his blood pressure medications. The threat was in
retaliation for Plaintiff's ...