United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER
DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO.
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
filed his initial complaint on January 17, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
On February 15, 2017, the Court severed Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants Avila, Christensen, and Lewis, and
transferred them to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern
District of California. (ECF No. 9.) The Court subsequently
screened and dismissed with leave to amend the balance of
Plaintiff's original complaint. (ECF No. 10.)
amended complaint (“FAC”) is now before the Court
for screening. (ECF No. 15.) Also before the Court is
Plaintiff's May 8, 2017 motion for leave to amend, in
which he seeks to add an additional defendant and additional
factual allegations. (ECF No. 20.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or 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 on 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 on which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 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 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda County,
811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
brings claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He is
incarcerated at High Desert State Prison
(“HDSP”). However, he complains of acts that
occurred at California State Prison, Corcoran
the exception of the severed claims, Plaintiff's original
complaint named only A. Manasrah as defendant. (ECF No. 1.)
Here, Plaintiff again names only Defendant A. Manasrah in the
caption of his complaint. However, the complaint contains
allegations against a number of other individuals and fails
to make clear whether Plaintiff intends to proceed against
these individuals as Defendants. They include an unnamed
surgeon, unnamed medical staff providing post-surgical care,
unnamed correctional officers, Dr. Beregoskokovya, Y.
Mansour, “Chief Physician Surgeon” C. McCabe,
Charles E. Young, “Custody Appeals Coordinator”
D. Goree, “Health Care Appeals Coordinator” U.
Williams, “Education Staff” G. Doan, “ADA
LVN” S. Hernandez, and “Deputy Director Policy
and Risk Management Services” J. Lewis.
only allegation against named Defendant Manasrah is as
follows: Plaintiff is mobility impaired and uses, varyingly,
a cane, walker, or wheelchair to get around. On June 1, 2016,
Plaintiff saw Manasrah in relation to several incidents where
Plaintiff fell down steps, including on and off buses.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Manasrah intentionally refused to
“address” these falls “or any other issue
concerning his back.” As a result, Plaintiff's back
condition worsened and Plaintiff experienced unnecessary
allegations against other individuals are as follows:
alleges an unnamed surgeon performed a laminotomy operation
with “bad surgical results.” He also alleges that
unnamed medical staff provided him “ineffective”
alleges that Dr. Beregoskokovya “refused to examine or
evaluate” Plaintiff or to “address his difficulty
climbing steps.” He also notes that Dr. Beregoskokovya
was unaware of the fall Plaintiff suffered while on his way
to see her.
wished to have medical personnel address his difficulty
climbing bus steps. He filed an administrative appeal with
respect to the fall he suffered on his way to see Dr.
Beregoskokovya. On November 20, 2015, Y. Mansour saw
Plaintiff with respect to this appeal. Mansour noted that
there should be “alternative” transportation
methods of getting Plaintiff to his medical appointment.
Mansour also informed Plaintiff he “could ask custody
(correctional officers)” to help him, but failed to
instruct officers to help Plaintiff. Unnamed correctional
officers would help Plaintiff go up and down steps on certain
occasions. At other times, however, officers would not help.
As a result, Plaintiff would stumble or fall, causing injury
to his back, leg, and shoulder.
McCabe and Charles E. Young also refused to address
Plaintiff's falls or his difficulty climbing steps.
February 1, 2016, Plaintiff fell down steps again, injuring
his back and causing “excruciating pain.”
Plaintiff saw Mansour after this fall to again address his
difficulty climbing steps. Mansour “dismissed”
the fall, informing Plaintiff that his issue was a
“custody” and not a medical issue. Later, on May
11, 2016, Mansour falsely claimed Plaintiff refused to attend
a medical appointment.
February 25, 2016, D. Goree, U. Williams, C. McCabe, G. Doan,
and S. Hernandez convened a “Reasonable Accommodation
Panel” in which it was determined that staff “can
assist” Plaintiff while getting on and off a bus
“when assistance is needed.” However, this panel
did not issue any instructions requiring officers to assist
seeks monetary relief and a declaration that his rights were
High Desert State Prison
extent Plaintiff sets forth any allegations arising from his
confinement in HDSP, that all such claims have been severed
and transferred to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern
District. (ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the Court will not
address those claims here. If Plaintiff wishes to bring forth
further claims in relation to his ...