United States District Court, E.D. California
TAFT L. HILL, Plaintiff,
C. PFEIFER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 9]
Taft L. Hill is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed October 9, 2019.
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). A 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 Cir. 2002).
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.
October 6, 2015, Plaintiff received a Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine, with instructions on how to
use and clean the appliance.
November 20, 2016, Plaintiff received the following CPAP
maintenance supplies and education worksheet: (1) one-galloon
plastic jug for distilled water; (2) one-gallon plastic jug
of water/vinegar solution; and (3) one-plastic baggie of mild
liquid soap 1 for 1 exchange.
January 1, 2018, the reasonable accommodation panel, which
consisted of Defendants S. Rimbach, S. Lopez, K. Carter, and
B. Kemp advised Plaintiff that there was no medical
indication for him to receive distilled water or soap for his
CPAP machine. However, Plaintiff received distilled water on
August 24, 2018.
December 10, 2018, Defendant K. Brown, told Plaintiff to
clean the CPAP daily with drinkable water and allow to air
December 19, 2017 to June 19, 2019, Kern Valley State Prison
has never provided Plaintiff with the appropriate supplies to
sterilize the CPAP machine or equipment.
suffers from nasal infections, pain and pressure, difficulty
breathing, and sleep deprivation.
requests $300, 000 in damages.