United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
SANJEEV BATRA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF NOS. 8, 19]
Michael B. Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
filed the original complaint on May 26, 2017. On August 2,
2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with
leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for
relief. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on August 17, 2017. (ECF No. 8.) On August 21,
2017, the undersigned dismissed the action for failure to
state a cognizable claim for relief and judgment was entered.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2017. (ECF
January 25, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
and remanded the action to this Court. (ECF No. 18.)
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that because all the
parties, including unserved defendants, had not consented to
proceed before the magistrate judge, the order was vacated
and the case was remanded for further proceedings pursuant to
Williams v King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir.
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 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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). However,
“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 (quotation marks
omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
originally filed a civil rights complaint against medical
doctor Defendant Sanjeev Batra on December 30, 2016, alleging
unlawful confinement in the hospital medical unit, improper
medical treatment, and retaliation. The action was dismissed
on March 6, 2017, which is pending appellate review.
April 6, 2017, Defendant Batra conspired with Defendant
Underwood, and various other hospital officials to violate
Plaintiff's constitutional rights by mixing his Lantus
and Humalog insulins with other unknown chemicals in
retaliation for Plaintiff's prior complaint regarding the
improper medical treatment.
April 23, 2017, Plaintiff got into a head argument with
Defendant Underwood regarding his tempering with his
insulins. On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff appeared before the
unit-2, team committee to gain the return of his access to
his hall-card which was put on hold by Underwood on April 23,
2017. The only question asked of Plaintiff by hospital
Psychologist, Brett Follett, is whether Plaintiff was going
to physically retaliate against Underwood for his involvement
in mixing Plaintiff's insulins.
seeks punitive damages in the amount of fifteen million