United States District Court, N.D. California
EDWARD T. FURNACE, Plaintiff,
C. EMERSON; B. WOODS, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two officials at
Pelican Bay State Prison. He is granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed
below, the complaint is ordered served upon defendants.
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
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." "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, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 1974.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege
two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that approximately six months ago, he was diagnosed
with a broken filling. To date, defendants have refused to
fix it. The condition is very painful. When liberally
construed, plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable
claim against defendants for violating his constitutional
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical/dental needs.
reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall
serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint
with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon
defendants Supervisory Dentist C. Emerson; and Chief
Executive Officer B. Woods. A courtesy copy of the
complaint with attachments and this order shall also be
mailed to the California Attorney General's Office.
Defendants shall file an answer in
accordance with the ...