Silas v. Chappell

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/13/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

CHARLES SILAS,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

CHAPPELL,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-3019 PJH (PR)

/
12
BACKGROUND
13
Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights
14
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
15
pauperis.
16
SCREENING
17
A.

Standard of Review

18
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
19
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
20
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
21
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
22
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
23
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
24
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
26
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
27
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
28
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

3

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

5

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

6

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

7

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the

8

“plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

9

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

10

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

11
For the Northern District of California

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

2

United States District Court

1

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

12

679 (2009). Complaints in pro se prisoner cases such as this one must be liberally

13

construed in favor of the plaintiff when applying the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.

14

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010).

15

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

16

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

17

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

18

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

19

B.

Legal Claims

20

Plaintiff states that he has Hepatitis C and bilateral cervical neural foraminal

21

stenosis. Plaintiff states that Watson, a doctor at his prison denied him the proper

22

medication and another defendant, Tottell, violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights.

23

Plaintiff provides no more information.

24

These allegations are insufficient to meet the Iqbal standard. Plaintiff must provide

25

specific factual allegations as to what each individual defendant actually did, identified as

26

closely as possible by time and location, sufficient to make it plausible that he has a claim

27

for relief against each defendant. Plaintiff must describe how the individual defendants’

28

actions caused him harm and he must specifically describe that harm. Simply stating that
2

1

unidentified medication was denied or that another defendant violated his rights is

2

insufficient. Plaintiff fails to describe what the medications was for and why it was required.

3

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.1

4

CONCLUSION

5

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within

6

thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption

7

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

8

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,

9

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

12

dismissal of the complaint.

13

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

14

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

15

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

16

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: November 13, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Silas3019.dwlta.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent plaintiff raises additional allegations that occurred at another facility in
Susanville, CA, plaintiff must file a complaint in the Eastern District of California where that
facility is located.
3