United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION (ECF NOS. 7,
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Abdullah Naim Hafiz is a former state prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
filed his original complaint on August 30, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
On February 6, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 6.) On March 16, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On
April 25, 2016, the undersigned dismissed the action for
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and judgment
was entered. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal on May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 18.)
13, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded the action to this Court. (ECF No. 22.)
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that, because all the
parties, including unserved defendants, had not consented to
proceed before the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge did
not have jurisdiction to validly dismiss Plaintiff's
first amended complaint as stated in Williams v.
King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). (Id.)
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal order
and judgment, and this case was remanded for further
proceedings. (Id.) The mandate issued on July 5,
2019. (ECF No. 23).
Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on March 16,
2015, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No.
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are
entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to
have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted). To 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The
“sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that
are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
events in the first amended complaint are alleged to have
occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison
(“PVSP”). Plaintiff names the following
defendants: (1) former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; (2)
former California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary Matthew Cate;
(3) former PVSP Warden James Yates; (4) PVSP Warden
Brazelton; (5) PVSP Chief Medical Officer F. Igbinosa; (6)
former Director of Adult Operations Susan Hubbard; (7) Chief
Deputy Secretary Deborah Hysen; (8) J. Clark Kelso; (9)
former Chief of Classification T. Rothchild; (10) former CDCR
Medical Director D. Winslow, M.D.; (11) Appeals Coordinator
J. Morgan; and (12) Appeals Coordinator L. Rodriguez.
first amended complaint consists largely of detailed
allegations regarding Valley Fever, and the underlying
research that established Valley Fever as a disseminated
disease. Plaintiff sets forth statistics and history to
support his claim that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a serious risk to Plaintiff's health or
safety. Plaintiff recounts statistics regarding inmate
mortality, prison design, and soil conditions.
alleges that he is African-American and that he suffered from
Hepatitis C and hypertension when he was transferred to PVSP.
Plaintiff alleges that, since he is at a higher risk for
Valley Fever, he never should have been sent to PVSP.
Plaintiff alleges that he discovered that a grand jury report
revealed that, in 2007 and 2008, Defendants ...