United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
Screening Requirement and Standards
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).
se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to
include 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 Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the
complaint must comply with the “short and plaint
statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must
also include the specificity required by Twombly and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have
facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1)
pursuant to § 1915A and finds that the allegations are
too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for
relief. The complaint alleges that plaintiff experienced
severe pain following a fall that occurred on October 1, 2014
and that he was subsequently denied adequate medical care. He
claims that “no diagnosis was made, ” “[n]o
adequate pain medication was prescribed, ” and that he
“was refused an MRI.” He names Dr. Standig, Dr.
Lee, Dr. Greenleaf, Nurse Milburn, Nurse Kayl, and LVN
Madrigal as defendants, but includes no allegations showing
how any of these defendants was personally involved in
violating plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to adequate
medical care. As such, plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient
facts to state a proper claim for relief. Although the
Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint
must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim
plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff
must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt
acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's
claim. Id. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim
for relief, the complaint must be dismissed.
will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can
allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant
and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal
theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th
Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford
pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any
deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to
file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall
clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each
defendant. Any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies
identified above and also adhere to the following
amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons
who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving
him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person
subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right
if he does an act, participates in another's act ...