United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
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.
§ 1983. On March 7, 2017, the Court screened
Plaintiff's original complaint and dismissed it with
leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.)
first amended complaint (“FAC”) is now before the
Court for screening. (ECF No. 12.)
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).
A court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous,
malicious, ” or 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 cour t determines that .
. . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
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 Cty., 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.
is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”). He complains of acts that occurred at
the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”),
California Correctional Institution (“CCI”), and
SVSP. He names the following Defendants: (1) C. Cryer,
Medical CEO at SATF; (2) M. Frite, Medical CEO at SATF; (3)
M. Carrasquillo, R.N. at SATF; and (4) “et al.”
All Defendants are sued in their individual capacities.
does not set forth chronological facts. Rather, Plaintiff
sets forth allegations against each Defendant separately. His
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
suffers from severe neck and back pain.
Defendant Cryer, Plaintiff alleges Cryer was “well
aware of [Plaintiff's] pain and suffering” given
that Plaintiff had submitted a 602 appeal on March 20, 2016
seeking medical care. Plaintiff alleges, however, that
Defendant Cryer did nothing to ensure that Plaintiff was
provided with adequate medical care, “leaving him in
severe pain.” As a result of Defendant Cryer's
negligence, delay, and deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical need, the pain in
Plaintiff's neck and back has worsened. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Cryer, “through his medical expertise and
training, knew or should have known” that his delay in
providing Plaintiff medical care would cause Plaintiff
“serious harm.” As to Defendant Frite, Plaintiff
alleges that, starting on March 20, 2016, Frite was aware
that Plaintiff suffered from “severe pain.”
Plaintiff alleges that Frite refused “to act upon [his]
training” to prevent Plaintiff from suffering
“irrepairable [sic] harm.” Plaintiff alleges he
“continuously sought medical attention, ” but was
turned away with “excuses.” Most of these excuses
were budgetary in nature. Plaintiff alleges Frite was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need and
that, as a result, Plaintiff now suffers from extreme pain in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
as to Defendant Carrasquillo, Plaintiff alleges Carrasquillo
also “did nothing to treat or assist” Plaintiff.
He alleges that Carrasquillo falsely claims to have
interviewed him on two occasions, but that she did not
provide him with treatment. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
rights were violated as a result of Carrasquillo's
negligence, delay, and deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical need.
claims violations of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate
medical care, his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to
due process, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to ...