Silas v. Chappell

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/21/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

CHARLES SILAS,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CHAPPELL,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-0630 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has
13
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14
DISCUSSION
15
A.

Standard of Review

16
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
17
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
18
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
19
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
20
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
21
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
22
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
24
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
25
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
26
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
27
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
28
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

B.

16

Legal Claims
In Silas v. Chappell, No. C 12-3019 PJH, plaintiff brought an action regarding the

17

treatment of his Hepatitis C, by simply stating that his condition was not being properly

18

treated. The complaint in that case was dismissed and it was described to plaintiff how he

19

must provide more information and identify specific defendants in order to state a claim.

20

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that only provided a little more information. It also

21

became apparent that plaintiff was describing events that occurred in 2002-2005 at High

22

Desert State Prison in the Eastern District of California. Court records also indicated that

23

plaintiff had recently filed the exact same case and exhibits in the Eastern District of

24

California. See Silas v. Chappell, 13-cv-0010 DAD P. This court dismissed and closed

25

Silas v. Chappell, No. C 12-3019 PJH, on February 4, 2013.

26

Plaintiff filed the instant case on February 13, 2013. Plaintiff again describes events

27

that occurred at High Desert State Prison in the Eastern District of California and simply

28

states that when he was transferred to San Quentin State Prison he did not receive proper
2

1

help for his medical condition. Plaintiff again fails to provided any additional information.

2

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

3

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

4

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

5

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc);

6

Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of "deliberate

7

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's

8

medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. See McGuckin, 974

9

F.2d at 1059.
Not only is this complaint duplicative of the last action, plaintiff has filed it only days

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

after the last complaint was dismissed and has again failed to provide any information

12

regarding his claims. It is apparent that this case is frivolous and malicious and will be

13

dismissed with prejudice.

14
15
16
17

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 3) is
VACATED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and malicious.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Silas0630.dsm.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3