United States District Court, E.D. California
JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff,
CLARK, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOURTEEN-DAY
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. On May 9,
2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended
complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff's
second amended complaint, filed on May 19, 2017, is currently
before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 16.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
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. Kim, John Doe One and John Doe
Two as defendants. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that he
injured his back, neck and shoulders during transfer from
Salinas Valley State Prison to R. J. Donovan. Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendants Clark, Wang, Kim and John
Does One and Two have violated his rights to medical care and
treatment by denying him a back brace. Plaintiff requests
compensatory and punitive damages, along with injunctive
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Plaintiff's complaint is short, it is not a plain
statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to
relief. Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations
describing what happened, when it happened and who was
involved. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions that he was
denied certain a back brace are not sufficient.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18, 20
asserting a claim “may join, as independent or
alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an
opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a), 20(a)(2);
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011);
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine,
but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George, 507
F.3d at 607. However, multiple parties may be joined as
defendants in one action if “any right to relief is
asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and [ ] any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P.