United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
C. SPERO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this
federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
other statutes in which he alleges medical staff at Salinas
Valley State Prison provided constitutionally inadequate
medical care. After conducting a review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave
to file an amended complaint on or before August 15,
Standard of Review
initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court
“is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1985 and
various state laws.
Claims Against Medical Staff
alleges that from 2009 to 2011 and in 2013, Drs. Gamboa, E.
Sullivan, M. Danial, K. Kumar, each at times plaintiff's
primary care physician at Salinas Valley State Prison,
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide
appropriate medications. He also alleges that E. Golding, a
nurse; M. Sepulveda, Chief Medical Officer; G. Ellis, Chief
Executive Officer; and L.D. Zamora failed to intervene when
they reviewed plaintiff's complaints about his
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 violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
liberally construed, plaintiff has stated claims against Drs.
Gamboa, E. Sullivan, M. Danial, K. Kumar, M. Sepulveda, G.
Ellis, and L.D. Zamora. These claims, though cognizable, must
be realleged in the amended complaint. If ...