United States District Court, E.D. California
STANLEY H. SOLVEY, Plaintiff,
S. GATES, et.al., Defendants.
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1]
Stanley H. Solvey is appearing pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed
September 19, 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).
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.
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as
true only for the purpose of the sua sponte
screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
names Chief of Healthcare Appeals S. Gates, Chief Medical
Officer Sherry Lopez, Chief Medical Officer S Davenport, K.
Holidy, Chief Physician and Surgeon Marth Spaeth, Physician
and Surgeon Andrew Zepp, Registered Nurse Kelly Blakenship,
and correctional officer John Doe, as Defendants.
April 27, 2016, Plaintiff suffered from a cyst on his left
August 24, 2016, Plaintiff had first surgery to remove the
cyst. However, the cyst returned eighteen months later. Dr.
Andrew Zepp prescribed pain medications from January 4, 2019
to February 4, 2019. However, Dr. Zepp refused to provide
further pain medications ...