United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical
personnel at the California Training Facility
(“CTF”) and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California
Correctional Health Services.Plaintiff's complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend, and Plaintiff filed a timely
amended complaint. Because the First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”), when liberally construed, cures the
deficiencies in the claims against the individual defendants,
it is ordered served upon them. The claims against the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and
the California Correctional Health Services are dismissed
because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them
upon which relief can be granted.
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. 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 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 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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that he suffers from Hepatitis C and hearing loss for
which the individual defendants provided inadequate
treatment, including misdiagnosis, delays and the wrong
medication. When liberally construed, his allegations are
sufficient to state a cognizable claim that the individual
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
also names the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the California
Correctional Health Services (“CCHS”) as
defendants, but he makes no allegations against them. In the
order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, the Court
informed Plaintiff, “To state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, Plaintiff must allege in a coherent and
understandable manner the actions and omissions of each
Defendant --- with approximate dates --- that amounted to
deliberate indifference to his Hepatitis C and
cirrhosis.” (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff has failed to cure
this deficiency in his claims against the CDCR and the CCHS,
which he was warned would result in the dismissal of his
claims. Nor are these Defendants liable simply as employers
of the prison officials who allegedly violated
Plaintiff's rights. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (under no circumstances is there
respondeat superior liability under Section 1983).
Accordingly, the claims against the CDCR and the CCHS must be
claims against the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and the California Correctional Health
Services are DISMISSED.
Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction
consent form and the United States Marshal shall serve,
without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 14) with attachments, and a copy of this
order on Defendants Dr. Zahed Ahmed; Dr. W. Tarrar; Dr. G.
Kalisher; Dr. M. Bhatti; Chief Medical Officer S. Posson,
D.O.; and Chief Physician D. Bright, D.O. at the California
Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction consent form, the complaint with all attachments
and a copy of this order ...