United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION (ECF Nos. 28, 29, 31) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edward David Jones, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated
this civil action on April 4, 2016. On October 28, 2016, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint with
leave to amend. (ECF No. 23.) Following an extension of time,
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 9,
2016, along with a supplement to his amended complaint. (ECF
Nos. 29, 31.) On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed an
additional supplement to his second amended complaint. (ECF
No. 28.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint is
currently before the Court for screening.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 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)). 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.
of Plaintiff's Allegations
is currently housed at California State Prison, Solano. The
events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred
primarily while Plaintiff was housed at California State
Prison, Corcoran (“Corcoran”). Plaintiff names
the following defendants: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former
Governor of the State of California; Susan Hubbard, Warden at
Corcoran; Correctional Counselor King, Chief Medical Doctor
Dwight Winslow, Does 1 through 20, Chief Medical Officer
Jeffery Wang, Dr. Agnes Wu, Dr. Huu Nguyen, Dr. Julian Kim,
and RN Does.
second amended complaint (including his supplemental
complaint) totals more than 180 pages. As best as can be
determined from the disjointed nature of his allegations,
Plaintiff appears to allege that while housed within high
risk areas in Kings County, including Corcoran, he was
exposed to Valley Fever. However, he was not informed of
potential dangers, health risks and likelihood of contracting
the disease. Plaintiff contends that between January 2008 and
December 2010, he contracted Valley Fever while at
Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges that various defendants
denied him fair and adequate treatment for his condition.
supplemental second amended complaint, Plaintiff further
alleges that on November 28, 2010, his mother, Geneva Jones,
visited Plaintiff at Corcoran and entered areas classified as
high risk. Plaintiff contends that CDCR failed to post
medical advertisements warning of the high risk areas.
Twenty-four (24) hours after the visit, Ms. Jones required
emergency medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Jones
unknowingly contracted Valley Fever. On December 3, 2010,
Plaintiff contends that Ms. Jones died of injuries consistent
with Valley Fever.
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a 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). As noted above, 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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff
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
(quoting Two ...