United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RENAME DEFENDANTS;
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 6)
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge
an inmate at the Maple Street Correctional Center
(“MSCC”) in Redwood City, California, filed this
pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against two MSCC employees, Cal Remington and Dr. Douglas
Spencer. Plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order.
For the reasons explained below, the complaint is dismissed
with leave to amend.
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 was given and ordered to take medication
meant for someone else, which made him sick. While deliberate
indifference to an inmate's safety or medical needs is
unconstitutional, Plaintiff does not allege how the two
Defendants were involved in causing him to receive the wrong
medication. Liability may be imposed on Defendants only if
Plaintiff shows actions or omissions by them that actually
and proximately caused the deprivation of his federally
protected rights. See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections
& Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir.
2013). Plaintiff's failure to specify what actions
Remington and Spencer took or failed to take that led to him
receiving the wrong medication, therefore, means that his
complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief
against them. To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, Plaintiff must allege the actions or omissions of
each Defendant that led to the alleged violation of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff is given the opportunity to
make these allegations in an amended complaint, which he must
file in accordance with the instructions below.
has also submitted a letter to the Court alleging inadequate
medical care at MSCC for a condition on his arm. (ECF No. 5.)
He states that he intends to add that claim to the complaint
in this action. If he wishes to include such a claim in this
case, he must include it in the amended complaint.
complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall
file an amended complaint within twenty eight (28) days from
the date this order is filed The amended complaint must
include the caption and civil case number used in this order
(No. C 17-0460 JSC (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an
amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,
see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the
original by reference; he must include in his amended
complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to
amend within the designated time and in accordance with this
order will result in the dismissal of this action.
is Plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case.
Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of
address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
“Notice of Change of Address.” He also must
comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion,
although he may request an extension of time provided it is
accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is filed on or
before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to ...