United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
NO. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
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. She has consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction (ECF No. 5). No other parties have appeared in
complaint (ECF No.1) is 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,
malicious, ” or 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. §
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)).
Plaintiffs must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.
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). To state a claim under
section 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th
section 1983 the plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is serving a three year sentence in the Fresno County Jail,
where the acts giving rise to her complaint arose. Plaintiff
names as Defendants (1) Corizon Health, (2) Fresno County
Jail, (3) Doe 1, Fresno County Sheriff, and (4) Doe 2,
complaints are numerous and diverse, but can be fairly
summarized as follows:
suffers from several medical conditions that have not been
requests for medication for pain from a miscarriage or
abortion have been refused.
advised a nurse that she might have blood clots, and was
given aspirin as a blood thinner. As a result, she began
hemorrhaging, lost consciousness due to low blood pressure,
and hit her head. She was not tested to see if she had a head
denied follow up after an April 2016 medical test indicated a
mass, possibly cancer, in her left kidney.
denied pain medication and other treatment only to save
costs. Instead of treatment, Plaintiff was put into lock
also has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”)
and a May 2017 court order that she receive medication for
it. She was told she would receive her PTSD medication in two
weeks, but it has been two months. She has yet to see a
also raises sanitation concerns. She was promised clean
clothing, hazard bags, and Depends for her bleeding, but has
been provided none of them.
could not climb into her top bunk because of the miscarriage,
and so took her cell mate's bottom bunk. This led to a
fight with the roommate, several broken teeth and swallowing
of Plaintiff's partial dental plate. Instead of medical
care, Plaintiff was told she would eventually “poop it
out.” Plaintiff felt humiliated.
refuse to sign plaintiff's grievances and instead rip
them up. Inmates do ...