United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
SUZANNE H. SEGAL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 1, 2017, Gregory Gene Lewis
(“Plaintiff”), a California state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101
et seq. (“ADA”); the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; and the California Government Claims Act, Cal.
Gov't Code §§ 905 et seq.
(“CGCA”). (Dkt. No. 1).
mandates that district courts perform an initial screening of
complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks redress
from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). This Court may dismiss such a complaint, or any
portion thereof, before service of process if the complaint
(1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1-2); see also Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc). For the reasons stated below, the Complaint is
DISMISSED with leave to amend.
OF THE COMPLAINT
sues three Chuckawalla State Prison (“CSP”)
employees: (1) Orry Marciano, a “physician
assistant/primary care physician”
(“Marciano”); (2) Ms. Beatres, a nurse
(“Beatres”); and (3) Kimberly Seibel, the warden
(“Seibel”). All Defendants are sued in both their
individual and official capacities. (Complaint
(“Compl.”) at 3).
because the California Supreme Court has expressed a
preference for the title “Government Claims Act,
” the Court will adopt that usage. See City of
Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 730, 741-42
alleges that he has been disabled for the past twelve years
following a gunshot wound to the leg. (Id. at 6). As
a result of his injury, Plaintiff walks with a limp and needs
to use a cane. (Id.). However, prison staff took
Plaintiff's cane away from him and nurse Beatres
“denied [Plaintiff's] disability” by refusing
to return it. (Id. at 5).
2016, CSP staff assigned Plaintiff to work as a kitchen
“lineback, ” which requires him to carry heavy
pans and trays and push heavy carts. (Id.). In light
of his disability and age (he is sixty-three years old), this
job is difficult for Plaintiff to perform. Clinic staff,
correctional officers, and the cook supervisory staff
“ignored the operational procedures” in assigning
him this job. (Id.).
unidentified time, Marciano, Plaintiff's primary health
care provider, increased Plaintiff's dosage of
Simvastatin from 20 to 40 milligrams, which Plaintiff
believes caused him to suffer a mild stroke and heart
failure. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff collapsed
and was taken to the hospital to receive treatment for the
stroke. (Id. at 6). Following this incident,
Plaintiff has been physically and mentally traumatized. His
body has deteriorated because his medical needs have been
“denied and delayed.” (Id.).
only allegation against Warden Seibel is that “she is
not doing her responsibility to instruct or educate her staff
to acknowledge inmates that are under the [ADA].”
(Id. at 5).
claims that Defendants' actions constituted
“discrimination of [his] disability” under the
ADA, citing Armstrong v. Davis. (Id. at
5). Plaintiff also contends that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights by subjecting him to “cruel and
unusual punishment” and by “delaying” his
“medical needs [sic].” (Id. at 5-6). In
addition, Plaintiff asserts that Marciano is liable for
“negligence [in] prescribing medicine that cause[d]
mild stroke [sic] and heart failure . . . .”
(Id.). Finally, Plaintiff alleges, without further
explanation or citation, that Defendants violated Title 15 of
the California Code of Regulations. (Id.). The
Complaint does not specifically request monetary or
injunctive relief. (See Id. at 5-6).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the
Complaint due to pleading defects. However, the Court must
grant a pro se litigant leave to amend his defective
complaint unless “it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202,
1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). For the reasons discussed below, it is not
“absolutely clear” that at least some of the
defects of Plaintiff's Complaint could not be cured by
amendment. The Complaint is therefore DISMISSED with leave to
The Complaint Violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint
contain “‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, '
in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). Rule 8
may be violated when a pleading “says too little,
” and “when a pleading says too
much.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106,
1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original).
the Complaint violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff does not
clearly identify the nature of each of the legal claims he is
bringing, the specific facts giving rise to each claim, or
the specific Defendant or Defendants against whom each claim
is brought. Without more specific information, Defendants
cannot respond to the Complaint. See Cafasso, U.S. ex
rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,637 F.3d 1047, 1058
(9th Cir. 2011) (a complaint violates Rule 8 if a defendant
would have difficulty understanding and responding to the
complaint). Moreover, because Plaintiff is not required to
provide evidence supporting his claims at this stage of the
litigation, the exhibits attached to ...