United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL (ECF No. 11) ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF No. 12) ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 10) THIRTY DAY
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2017, the Court screened
Plaintiff's civil rights complaint and found it stated no
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was directed to
file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff's
first amended complaint is before the Court for screening.
(ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in
11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted two additional filings: a
request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 11) and a
motion for a twenty-one day extension of time to file an
amended complaint (ECF No. 12). Both filings are addressed
Motion for Counsel
Court explained in its prior screening order that Plaintiff
does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel.
(ECF No. 9 at 4.) Plaintiff's renewed motion for counsel
does not present any new grounds or show exceptional
circumstances. His request will be denied, albeit without
Request for Extension of Time
11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a twenty-one day
extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)
Therein, Plaintiff requested a twenty-one day extension from
the date of May 8, 2017 to file additional documentation in
support of his first amended complaint.
explained in further detail below, Plaintiff's claims are
considered on the basis of his complaint alone and need not
refer to outside documentation. Therefore, Plaintiff's
request for an extension will be denied.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
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 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)),
and 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). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting
“under color of state law.” See 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii).
Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
claims stem from his incarceration in the Stanislaus County
Jail in Modesto, California. He brings this action against
the California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”);
the Stanislaus County Jail (“the Jail”); the
General Service Agency (“GSA”); Lt. Mike Dailey;
Sgt. Chad Blake; retired Sgt. Vince Truffa; Nurse Barbara;
Practitioner Tonya; Nurse Joe C., and Practitioner Sunny
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
Cause of Leg Injury
was assigned to jail operations by Defendants Truffa, Dailey,
and Blake. He was responsible for refurbishment, upkeep, and
maintenance in and around the Jail. ...