United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge.
an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro
se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and
Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
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).
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be
liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
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 violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
states that he has received inadequate medical care.
indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth
Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th
Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX
Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th
Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate
indifference" involves an examination of two elements:
the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the
nature of the defendant's response to that need.
Id. at 1059.
"serious" medical need exists if the failure to
treat a prisoner's condition could result in further
significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain." Id. The existence of an
injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find
important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of
a medical condition that significantly affects an
individual's daily activities; or the existence of
chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that
a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical
treatment. Id. at 1059-60.
prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she
knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious
harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable
steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware
of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, ” but he
“must also draw the inference.” Id. If a
prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was
not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment,
no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of
Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A
difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison
medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to
a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662
F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
states that Defendants failed to provide adequate treatment
for his serious medical needs. He seeks money damages and
injunctive relief. Plaintiff states that he suffers from
constant pain regarding his shoulder; however, he provides no
more information. It is not clear the nature of his injury or
medical problem, nor does he describe the treatment that is
needed which has been denied. Plaintiff states he was denied
medical care on February 14, 2016, but he fails to describe
the care that was denied. In order to obtain injunctive
relief, Plaintiff must provide more information concerning
the relief he seeks. While he has set forth the basic
elements of the claim he has failed to provide sufficient
factual allegations to support the claim. Plaintiff's
original complaint contained the same deficiencies, and he
was informed that he needed to provide more information in an
amended complaint. Unfortunately, the amended complaint is
substantially similar to the original complaint and Plaintiff
has failed to provide additional information.
complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
United States Supreme Court has explained the
“plausible on its face” standard of
Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide
the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide
more information. Plaintiff should describe the medical
problems with his shoulder and the specific actions of each
Defendant that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
should describe what ...