United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING
ORDER ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: (1) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE IS
WILLING TO PROCEED ONLY ON THE CLAIMS FOUND COGNIZABLE BY THE
COURT FOR DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN
VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST C. CRYER, J. LEWIS,
AND S. GATES, AS WELL AS FAILURE TO PROTECT IN VIOLATION OF
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AGAINST S. SMITH; (2) FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR (3) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO
STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO THIS COURT ISSUING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE ASSIGNED
TO THIS CASE (ECF NO. 1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Adam
Sharpe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on
May 21, 2019. (ECF No. 1).
The
Court has screened the Complaint and finds that Plaintiff
states a cognizable claim for deliberate indifferent to
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment
against C. Cryer, J. Lewis, and S. Gates, as well as a claim
for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment
against S. Smith. The Court will provide Plaintiff with leave
to file a First Amended Complaint, if he believes that
additional facts will establish other claims with the
assistance of the legal standards set forth below. Plaintiff
may also choose to proceed only on the claims found
cognizable in this order, or to stand on this Complaint,
subject to the undersigned issuing findings and
recommendations to the assigned district judge consistent
with this order.
I.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The
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 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). As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 7), the Court may also screen the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. “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.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A
complaint is required to 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)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere
possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal
conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.
Pleadings
of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints
should continue to be liberally construed after
Iqbal).
II.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's
complaint alleges as follows:
Plaintiff suffers from Keratoconus, an eye disease that
deteriorates vision. For this, Plaintiff has been prescribed
SynergEyes Hybrid Contact Lenses. Without the contact lenses,
Plaintiff's natural vision is 20/200 in the left eye and
20/400 in the right eye. The lenses are to be replaced every
6 months. Plaintiff received lenses on October 4, 2016 at
Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff was then transferred to
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in
December of 2016. Plaintiff let SATF medical know that
Plaintiff's lenses would need to be replaced.
On
April 27, 2017, Plaintiff was told he would be referred to
see an ophthalmologist. Plaintiff did not see this
ophthalmologist. Plaintiff filed a healthcare appeal, which
was partially granted. Yet, by September of 2017, Plaintiff
still had not received the replacement lenses.
Plaintiff
then submitted a CDCR 1824 reasonable accommodation request
for single cell status, stating that he felt vulnerable to a
cell mate because his vision, without contact lenses, was
severely impaired. This request was denied.
Plaintiff
finally saw an ophthalmologist on June 4, 2018, which
recommended contact lens replacement. However, by August 1,
2018, Plaintiff had yet to receive replacements. Plaintiff
submitted another appeal, which was answered. But Plaintiff
still did not receive any contact lenses.
On
January 24, 2019, Plaintiff still had not received his
contact lenses. He was then assaulted by a cell mate. He
received multiple injuries and was escorted off the prison
grounds in an emergency response vehicle.
On
April 1, 2019, having still not received contact lenses,
Plaintiff submitted another reasonable accommodation request
...