United States District Court, E.D. California
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff,
CLARK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF APPEAL
(ECF NO. 14) SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 8)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jesse L. Youngblood (“Plaintiff”), a state
prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
filed his original complaint in this action on November 18,
2015, along with a motion for injunctive and other relief,
including seeking a judgment in his favor. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.)
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 4,
2015. (ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal
November 3, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
injunctive and other relief because Plaintiff's
most-recent amended complaint had not yet been screened to
determine if he stated any cognizable claim for relief and no
defendant had made an appearance in this action. (ECF Nos.
11, 13.) On November 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document
titled “Notice of Appeal.” (ECF No. 14.) Although
the “notice” refers to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 and several California Penal Code sections, it
does not include any argument or requested form of relief,
and the Court cannot ascertain whether Plaintiff is
requesting reconsideration by this Court or seeking to appeal
a particular ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The purported
notice is insufficient to support either request.
these reasons, Plaintiff's notice of appeal shall be
disregarded. Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60 or requesting certification of an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). However, any such
request must be made in the form of a motion and, more
importantly, set forth the basis for the motion, the order to
be reconsidered or appealed, and the relief sought.
Screening Requirement and Standard
first amended complaint, filed on December 4, 2015, is
currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 8.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran
(“CSP-Corcoran”), where the events in the
complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Dr.
Clark, Dr. Jeffrey Wang, Dr. Wang and John and Jane Does as
defendants. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained
acute injuries to his back, neck and shoulder while being
transferred to R. J. Donovan Prison on December 23, 2010.
After arriving at R. J. Donovan, Plaintiff submitted a CDCR
602 Form and a Medical Form for a reasonable accommodation
seeking medication, a back brace and lower tier chrono from
an unknown doctor (“John Doe 1”) at R. J.
Donovan. The doctor ordered x-rays and prescribed Tylenol for
pain management, but denied the chrono and back brace. A
second unknown doctor (“John Doe 2”) at R. J.
Donovan prescribed Tylenol and denied the chrono and back
brace. Plaintiff allegedly made other requests to a third
unknown doctor (“Jane Doe 1”) at R. J. Donovan,
who prescribed Tylenol, but no other treatment in 2011/2012,
such as a chrono or back brace.
Plaintiff's arrival at CSP-Corcoran, Plaintiff submitted
several forms and exhausted all available levels for relief
regarding his treatment plan to no avail in the period from
2012 through 2015. At some point, Dr. Clark approved of
Tylenol, but stated that his supervisor would not let him
grant a chrono or a back brace from the incident in 2010. Dr.
Wang also approved of Tylenol, but further stated that his
supervisor would not let him provide Plaintiff with a chrono
or back brace. Dr. Wang also reportedly told Plaintiff he
could submit a CDCR 602/Medical Form or ADA (1824) Form or
take it to court. Dr. Kim also approved of Tylenol, but
denied Plaintiff a chrono or back brace as a “necessity
in treatment plan/rehabilitation plan.” (ECF No. 8, p.
6.) Plaintiff also alleges that an unknown individual
(“John Doe”) took x-rays and showed results.
relief, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including a chrono
and back brace, along with compensatory and punitive damages.
Additionally, Plaintiff suggests that he sought relief in
“all lower courts, ” including Kings County
Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, and the