United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
MARIA-ELENA JAMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a California state inmate, filed this pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 6, 2017, the
Court reviewed his original complaint and dismissed it with
leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint,
which is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C.
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed, however.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 127
S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in
order to state a claim a complaint “does not need
detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant prison
officials and medical staff delayed in diagnosing and
treating a cancerous tumor in his right leg. Even after he
finally received surgery, plaintiff alleges, defendants
failed to provide necessary pain relief and physical
accommodations and failed to follow discharge orders from the
outside hospitals that treated him. Plaintiff alleges that
this deficient medical treatment began at Pelican Bay State
Prison (“PBSP”), where we was incarcerated from
2013 to July 2015, and continued at California State Prison,
Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”), where he was transferred
in July 2015 so that he could be closer to his treatment
liberally construed, the allegations state a cognizable claim
for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious
medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as
against the following defendants: Nancy Adam, Michael C.
Sayre, Amanda Karanopoulos, Krystal Aubin, Jay Lian, J.
Arriola, Heather McAlexander, Nipa Tran, I. Bal, D.
Bodenhammer, J. Lewis, A. Richmond, Shaw, and Powers.
potential liability of defendants is under the Eighth
Amendment, and is not under the Fourteenth Amendment's
Due Process Clause. There is no constitutional right to a
prison or jail administrative appeal or grievance system in
California, and therefore no due process liability for
failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly.
See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1988). It is alleged here, however, that by denying or
improperly handling such appeals, defendants Bal, Sayre,
Arriola, and Lewis denied medical care that plaintiff alleges
was sorely needed. Thus, it is for the denial of medical care
that these defendants may be held liable, not simply for
denying administrative appeals.
foregoing reasons, the Court ...