United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
S GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”),
filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that PBSP correctional officials
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His amended complaint
(Dkt. No. 15) is now before the Court for review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
to the amended complaint, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiff
suffered an injury to his right knee and the side of his
right leg and was transferred to the Triage and Treatment
Area (“TTA”). Dkt. No. 15. (“Am.
Compl.”) at 3. He repeatedly requested medical
attention for his injured leg, but RN Amy Olsen, PA Laurie
Thomas, RN Jasmine Yang, and Dr. Elise Williams refused to
examine his leg, and refused to obtain medical assistance for
Plaintiff. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff was admitted to the
TTA upon his request, but RN Yang and Dr. Williams still
refused to examine his injury. Id. at 4. Plaintiff
repeatedly pushed his emergency light button. CNA Kathrine
Blakeley, RN John Kim, and RN Rhoda Nasr responded to the
emergency button but refused to provide any help.
Id. The next day, July 28, 2018, RN Yang and Dr.
Williams discharged Plaintiff with recommendations for stress
management, claiming that his pain was from stress. When
Plaintiff reviewed his medical records months later,
Plaintiff learned that PA Thomas and Dr. Williams wrote that
Plaintiff claimed to be injured because he feared for his
safety on the yard and was admitted for his protection.
Plaintiff states that the stated reason for admittance is
false. Id.at 4.
his yard, Plaintiff repeatedly put in sick call slips to
obtain medical treatment for his leg injury. PA Devinder
Kumar and RN Eric Golding ignored him, refused to see him,
minimized his pain, and harassed him for seeking medical
treatment. Am. Compl. at 5-6.
November 5, 2018, Plaintiff had an MRI and learned that he
had a torn medial meniscus. PA Kumar read the MRI that day
and described the tear as just a small tear. On January 25,
2019, Plaintiff had surgery to repair the meniscus. The
surgeon stated that the meniscus was completely torn. When
other inmates have been seen by PA Kumar for sports injuries,
PA Kumar has offered them MRIs and given them medical
equipment on site, and, if needed, ensured that they received
surgery within two months of the injury. However, PA Kumar
did not provide Plaintiff with medical equipment for over six
months, forcing him to walk with an injured leg without
equipment. Plaintiff currently requires additional surgery
because of the defendants' failure to provide him with
medical treatment. Am. Compl. at 6.
construed, Plaintiff's allegation that RN Amy Olsen, PA
Laurie Thomas, RN Jasmine Yang, Dr. Elise Williams, CNA
Kathrine Blakeley, RN John Kim, RN Rhoda Nasr, PA Devinder
Kumar and RN Eric Golding refused to provide him with medical
treatment for his torn meniscus states a cognizable Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to a ...