United States District Court, E.D. California
OBIE L. CRISP, III, Plaintiff,
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants.
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and failed to
provide him with adequate medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Presently before the court is
plaintiff's third amended complaint for screening.
magistrate judge previously assigned to the case dismissed
plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend for
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint (ECF No. 22) and a second amended complaint
(ECF No. 28). Upon screening plaintiff's second amended
complaint the undersigned found plaintiff failed to state a
claim and granted plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.)
Plaintiff has now filed a third amended complaint. (ECF No.
court is required to screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental
entity or an 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).
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,
122728 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
8(a)(2) 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)). However, in order to survive
dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more that “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action”; it must contain factual
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. In
reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See
Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740
(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts
in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Allegations in the Complaint
third amended complaint contains allegations regarding
defendants' failure to provide him with clean clothing in
the correct size, failure to accommodate his need for daily
showers, and failure to assist him with activities of daily
living in a timely manner.
names as defendants: (1) California Health Care Facility
(“CHCF”); (2) Warden Brian Duffy; (3) Warden R.J.
Rackley; (4) Chief Executive Officer Jackie Clark; (5) Senior
Registered Nurse (“SRN”) S. Hardy; (6) SRN
Robles; (7) SRN Crickeet; (8) Dr. Nasir; (9) Laundry
Supervisor D. Greenwood; (10) Registered Nurse Islas; (11)
Certified Nurse's Assistant (“CNA”) K.
Johnson; (12) CNA C. Frye; and (13) CME Adams.
third amended complaint, like the two previously screened,
contains lengthy narratives. This makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for the court to determine the claims plaintiff
is attempting to assert and against whom he is asserting his
various claims. Thus, the court is unable to conduct the
screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, because