United States District Court, N.D. California
WILLIE B. PENILTON, Plaintiff,
M.E. SPEARMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK DKT. NO. 13
C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
which he alleges that defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to maintain sanitary conditions
at the pill dispensary at Correctional Training Facility in
Soledad. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to
amend because it failed to state any claim for relief.
second amended complaint, the subject of this order, appears,
under the liberal pleading standards for pro se complaints,
to state claims for relief. Defendants are directed to file a
dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, in
response to the operative complaint on or before September 4,
Standard of Review
initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court
“is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
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. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges his jailors at Correctional Training Facility made
him wait in cold and unsanitary conditions for his
medications. More specifically, he alleges that from November
2015 to February 2016, he was made to wait for 30 to 90
minutes for his medications in a line outside during wet,
cold weather. Not only was it wet and cold, but it was also
unsanitary. Inmates who need to inject medications leave
blood spots “everywhere, ” and birds perched
by the liberal pleading standards for pro se complaints, the
Court cannot say that plaintiff has failed to state claims
for relief. Accordingly, the Court will allow service of this
foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Clerk
of the Court shall issue summons and a Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction consent form and the United States Marshal shall
serve these forms, without prepayment of fees, along with a
copy of the operative complaint in this matter (Dkt. No. 10),
all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon M. E.
Spearman, the warden of the Correctional Training Facility in
Soledad, and Gerald Ellis, who is the chief executive officer
at the same ...