United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR
THE FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ECF NOS.
1, 14) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS REQUESTING
APPOINTED COUNSEL (ECF NOS. 2, 6) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REQUEST SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, AS PREMATURE (ECF
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Paul Dixon is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the
United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 13); Local Rule 302.
March 8, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
California. (ECF No. 1.)
March 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court
consider granting him appointed counsel. (ECF No. 2.) On
April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second motion requesting
the Court consider granting him appointed counsel. (ECF No.
April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the
United States Marshal be ordered to serve the complaint and
summons. (ECF No. 8.)
23, 2017, the District Court for the Northern District of
California found that certain of Plaintiff's allegations
challenged the conditions of confinement at Coalinga State
Hospital. Thus, those allegations and Plaintiff's
above-described pending motions were transferred to this
Court. (ECF No. 11.)
12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in this
action, (ECF No. 14), before the Court could screen
Plaintiff's original complaint. Plaintiff's first
amended complaint contains no allegations concerning the
conditions of confinement at Coalinga State Hospital, which
were the only allegations transferred to this Court in this
interests of justice, the Court will now screen
Plaintiff's original complaint allegations, and disregard
the first amended complaint. The Court will also address
Plaintiff's pending motions further below.
Screening Requirement and Standard
any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). The pleadings of
detainees are construed liberally and are afforded the
benefit of any doubt. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729
F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013); Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
“the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a
plaintiff's factual allegations, ” Neitze v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), and “a
liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled, ” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982)). Also, while a plaintiff's allegations are taken
as true, courts “are not required to indulge
unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is currently detained at Coalinga State Hospital, where the
events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names Coalinga State
Hospital and Brandon Price, the Executive Director, as
pertinent part, Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff was
prescribed medicine by Dr. Jarome Hamrick, a resident
physician at Coalinga State Hospital. These include Tylenol
for headaches and vitamins, and the prescription was written
in September 2008. Dr. Hamrick informed Plaintiff ...