United States District Court, E.D. California
RICHARD R. HANS, Plaintiff,
U. BANIGA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE (DOC.
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
has filed a complaint asserting constitutional claims against
governmental employees and/or entities. (Doc. 1.) Generally,
the Court is required to screen complaints brought by inmates
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
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)),
and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences, ” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting
“under color of state law.” See 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii).
Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
claims arose while he was incarcerated at California
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi,
California. He names as Defendants Dr. U. Baniga, the CCI
Chief Physician and Surgeon; the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); and Does
1-5. Plaintiff brings this action for violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights, for which he seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief. The parties are named in
their individual and official capacities.
allegations may be fairly summarized as follows:
Plaintiff has suffered from chronic hepatitis C for over 20
years. The failure to treat the condition and/or a delay in
treating it can cause his condition to worsen.
began his period of incarceration in September 2017,
presumably at CCI. Since that time, Plaintiff has repeatedly
sought treatment for his hepatitis C. However, each time that
he submitted a healthcare request form or asked for treatment
when speaking to a medical provider directly, he has either
been denied care or promised care that he never received.
September 18, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a health care
grievance asking for treatment for his condition. On
September 24, 2018, Dr. Baniga “facilitated a
denial” of the grievance even though Dr. Baniga was
aware of Plaintiff's chronic condition and repeated
requests for treatment. Dr. Baniga, who is responsible for
approving or denying medical care recommendations by
subordinate medical providers, “relies upon
unreasonable policies” in making these decisions.
CDCR, which retains custody of Plaintiff, has failed to
provide him with adequate medical care, in violation of
Plata v. Schwarzenegger, N.D. Cal. C-01-1351.