United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner at the California Health Care Facility
(CHCF) in Stockton, under the authority of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Plaintiff proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
action is referred to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 302(c). For the reasons that follow,
plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted, and his complaint is dismissed with leave to file a
First Amended Complaint subject to the legal standards set
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement
that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 8, will be granted.
result, plaintiff must, over time, pay the statutory filing
fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff
will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance
with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By
separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency
to collect the initial partial filing fee from
plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of
the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make
monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account.
These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to
the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). A
claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d
1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only
‘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
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' but it
demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly at 555). To survive dismissal for failure to
state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal at 678 (quoting Twombly 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to
a ‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly at
556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are
‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability, it ‘stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to
relief.”'” Id. (quoting
Twombly at 557).
se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the
complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.
Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint
complaint challenges the quality of mental health care
plaintiff is receiving at CHCF and the refusal of the
California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to transfer
plaintiff to a treatment program within the California
Department of Mental Health (DMH). Plaintiff describes a
“Catch 22” in which the BPH, in 2006 and 2013,
denied plaintiff parole (and, apparently, transfer to DMH),
in deference to the assessments of Drs. Sargent, Oyeyemi and
Sahni that plaintiff continues to require an intensive and
structured therapeutic environment that plaintiff asserts he
is not receiving within CDCR. Plaintiff references (but does
not attach) inmate appeals which he describes as follows, ECF
No. 1 at 13:
My request for transfer and appeal were based on the
following considerations: I am not getting the level of
treatment found necessary by Dr. Sargent and Dr. Oyeyemi. I
am not receiving 10 hours of therapy as counted by CMC
prison. Time spent in “treatment” as counted by
CMC in Tier Group was not treatment. The Group watched
nature, history or music videos instead of treatment.
Petitioner has been victimized by other inmates in CMC
D-Quad. Petitioner is in need of a diagnostic evaluation as
to whether he is schizoid or not for Parole Board and
treatment purposes; CMC has refused to do the evaluation. The
Parole Board is dissatisfied with petitioner's level of
treatment as an EOP and refuses to parole petitioner on that
identifies other alleged inadequacies in the mental health
treatment he receives within CDCR, including an allegation
that his current therapist is unlicensed. Id. at 18.
complaint alleges that the BPH improperly relied on submitted
psychological assessments to conclude that plaintiff's
underlying crimes (including first degree murder) were the
product of his mental illness, and thus indicative of his
ongoing mental illness, despite the jury rejecting
plaintiff's diminished capacity defense at trial.
Plaintiff contends that, as a matter of due process, the BPH
should rely on the findings of the jury or reconvene a parole
reconsideration hearing that includes the live testimony of
witnesses and a six-person jury to reach new and accurate
findings concerning plaintiff's mental condition and
entitlement to parole.
complaint identifies two claims for prospective injunctive
relief: (1) transfer of plaintiff to DMH; and (2) a new
parole hearing. The complaint names two defendants: former
CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard, and BPH Executive Officer