United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
APPROPRIATE AS TO DEFENDANTS WOODS AND HASHEM (ECF NO.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff consented to
magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) Currently before
the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint filed October
24, 2016. (ECF No. 8.)
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 against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)). Moreover,
Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally
participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights.
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To
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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is housed at Kern
Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff brings
this civil rights action against Defendants Dr. Woods and Dr.
Hashem, dentists employed by the CDCR at KVSP, in their
individual and official capacities, seeking injunctive relief
and monetary damages.
to December 2014, Plaintiff had damage to his teeth requiring
a lower partial. (Am. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff
paid for a lower partial on December 29, 2014, and it was
confiscated in a cell search. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
After not having his partial for a year, Plaintiff told
Defendant Woods that due to the delay in receiving his
partial it would not fit when it was received. (Id.
at ¶ 10.) On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff was interviewed
by Defendant Woods regarding an inmate appeal. (Id.
at ¶ 11.) Defendant Woods was supposed to add the
replacement of a dental bridge to the appeal and did not do
so. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
attempted to submit two inmate appeals to add the replacement
of the dental bridge to to the appeal but they were not
processed. (Id. at ¶ 12.) On October 22, 2015,
Plaintiff told Defendant Woods that due to not having his
partial his teeth were being destroyed. (Id. at
¶ 13.) Defendant Woods visually examined Plaintiff's
teeth and could see that they were deteriorating.
(Id. at ¶ 13.) Defendant Woods did not provide
treatment to Plaintiff's teeth. (Id. at ¶
13.) The failure to provide treatment was causing Plaintiff
pain and discomfort and affecting the quality of his life.
(Id. at ¶ 13.)
dental visits Defendants Woods and Hashem expressed to
Plaintiff that the absence of the lower partial was causing
damage to his teeth, but did nothing. (Id. at ¶
14.) Defendant Woods explained that Plaintiff would have to
have his broken teeth extracted and Plaintiff requested that
he receive his partial before all his teeth had to be
extracted. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
received a lower partial on February 9, 2016. (Id.
at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff contends that the delay in receiving
the partial resulted in extensive damage to his teeth which
have not been treated. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff
is in a considerable amount of pain, ...