United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF RULE 8(a), WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1.)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOT EXCEEDING 25 PAGES ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF A
CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM
S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Dion Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 19,
2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action at
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. (ECF No. 1.) On August 24, 2017, the case was
transferred to this court. (ECF No. 6.)
Complaint is now before the court for screening.
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 upon 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 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).
SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
is presently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in
Crescent City, California. The events at issue in the
Complaint allegedly occurred at North Kern State Prison in
Delano, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in
the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants Olga
Beregovskay, M.D.; A Shittu, M.D.; Ndukwe N. Odeluga, M.D.;
J. Lewis (Deputy Director, Policy and Risk Management
Services for California Correctional Health Care Services);
R. Robles, M.D.; L. Krzysiak, M.D., S.H. Banayan, M.D.; D.
Gines, M.D.; Karen Jose, LVN; T. Guhl, RN; Gabriel, RN; C.
Agbasi, LVN; Armendarez, RN; Oyeniyi, LVN; and S. Garza, SRN
II (collectively, “Defendants”).
Complaint is 80 pages in length, with an additional 137 pages
of attached exhibits. He seeks monetary damages and
Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,
' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating
federal rights elsewhere conferred.'” Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker
v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600,
618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d
1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678
F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Warner,
451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent
that the violation of a state law ...