United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”), filed this civil rights case under 42
U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Defendants - who all work at SVSP -
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He is
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate
order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is
ordered served upon defendants.
Standard of Review
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). In its review the court must identify any
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
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 in order 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 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that he is a disabled inmate confined to a
wheelchair. Defendants Defendant Nurse Tim confiscated his
wheelchair while showering, which forced him to crawl to his
cell. Defendants Nurse Practitioner Tyler and Nurse Mark
refused to give him back his wheelchair or otherwise assist
him. He could not get up, and despite several requests for
medical assistance, he remained on the floor of his cell for
the rest of the day and overnight until other prison
personnel eventually took him to the hospital. He suffered
from pain, cold, and vomiting blood when he was lying on the
floor of his cell. After the wheelchair was returned to
plaintiff, defendant Gamboa, the Chief Medical Officer at
SVSP, heard plaintiff's staff complaint against Tyler and
in doing so once again confiscated plaintiff's
wheelchair. The wheelchair was later returned to plaintiff
when he filed an administrative grievance about Gamboa's
decision. When liberally construed, plaintiff's
allegations state cognizable claims against the four
defendants for deliberate indifference to his medical needs
in violation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights.
reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall
serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint
with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon
defendants Nurse Practitioner Tyler, Nurse Mark, Nurse Tim,
and Doctor Gamboa at Salinas Valley State Prison. A courtesy
copy of the complaint with ...