Adams v. California Health Care Facility

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/28/2018 DIRECTING MONTHLY PAYMENTS be made from Prison Account of Rineson C. Adams. The Director of the CDCR shall collect an initial partial filing fee and monthly payments in accordance with this order until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. (cc: CDCR and Financial Department) (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIMMY CALVIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-1942-WBS-EFB P

v.

SCREENING ORDER

D. BAUGHMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed this case from state court and requested that the court screen

19

the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF Nos. 2, 5. As discussed, the court finds that for the

20

purposes of § 1915A the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state potentially cognizable

21

claims against all defendants.

22

I.

Screening Requirement and Standards

23

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

24

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

26

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

27

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

28

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
1

1

A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)

2

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and

3

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the

4

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

5

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

6

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,

7

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

8

U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

9

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked

10

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

11

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of

12

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

13

678.

14

Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.

15

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

16

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

17

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a

18

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.

19

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

20

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

21

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

22

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

23

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

24

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the

25

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

26

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.

27

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

28

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable
2

1

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

2

(2009).

3

II.

4

Screening Order
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sottonian indifferently discontinued a medication that was

5

necessary to treat his chronic back pain and that defendant Baughman, being made aware of

6

Sottonian’s actions through a letter plaintiff sent him, failed to act. For the limited purposes of

7

§ 1915A screening and liberally construed, the complaint (ECF No. 1) states potentially

8

cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants D. Baughman and J. Sottonian.

9

III.

10
11
12

Summary of Order
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state potentially cognizable claims
against all defendants.

13

2. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in accordance with

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 within 21 days of the date of this order.

15

DATED: June 28, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3