Opinion
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
ALKA SAGAR, Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff Leslie Croaker Jr., a prisoner at Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk, California, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket Entry No. 1 ("Compl.").) Plaintiff names the following Defendants in his Complaint: (1) Dr. Lai, (2) District Attorney Kimberly Reece, and (3) an unidentified judge. (Compl. 3.) All Defendants are being sued in their official and individual capacities. (Id.)
The Court has screened the Complaint as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval from the district judge. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Lai committed medical malpractice while Plaintiff was a patient at Metropolitan State Hospital. (Compl. 5.) Plaintiff claims that Dr. Lai "overloaded [his] system with psychotic medicine" and failed to "monitor[] [his] gluecose [sic] levels." (Compl. 6.) The remaining allegations are largely incomprehensible; however, they all concern Dr. Lai's treatment of Plaintiff and his resulting medical complications. (Id.)
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that District Attorney Kimberly Reece made false statements in court, and that the judge who presumably presided over his criminal case "sen[t] [him] to a mental hospital under false pretenses." (Compl. 3, 5.)
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental entity or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion thereof, before service of process, if the court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if a plaintiff fails to proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). A plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements" of his claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the [complaint] need only give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) ( per curiam ) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In considering whether to dismiss a complaint, a court is generally limited to the pleadings and must construe all "factual allegations set forth in the complaint... as true and... in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, pro se pleadings are "to be liberally construed" and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by a lawyer. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Iqbal incorporated the Twombly pleading standard and Twombly did not alter courts' treatment of pro se filings; accordingly, we continue to construe pro se filings liberally when evaluating them under Iqbal."). Nevertheless, dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warranted based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat the claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984).
IV. DISCUSSION
The Court finds that portions of Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).
A. Failure to Comply With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Rule 8(e)(1) instructs that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." A complaint violates Rule 8 if a defendant would have difficulty understanding and responding to the complaint. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011).
Here, the Complaint does not comply with the standards of Rule 8. "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff's allegations are vague and conclusory. For example, Plaintiff fails to specify when and where he allegedly received inadequate medical treatment. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify the purported false statements made in court, which case they pertain to, or the context in which they were made. Therefore, the Complaint does not provide Defendants with fair notice of the claims in a clear and concise statement. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
B. Failure to Identify a Specific Constitutional Right
To the extent the Complaint alleges a violation of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights, it arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 requires a claimant to show: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States." Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986)).
Plaintiff fails to allege a federal constitutional right. (See Compl. 1-6.) The Court does not have jurisdiction over negligence or malpractice actions. See Neitzke v. Williams, 480 U.S. 319, 321-22 (1989). ("Insofar as Williams claimed deficient medical care... [he] described a constitutionally noncognizable instance of medical malpractice.") Moreover, "[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff must identify the rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States of which he was allegedly deprived. Because Plaintiff has not identified a constitutional right that was allegedly violated, he fails to state a claim.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall file a First Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. The First Amended Complaint must cure the pleading defects discussed above and shall be complete in itself without reference to the original Complaint. See L.R. 15-2 ("Every amended pleading filed as a matter of right or allowed by order of the Court shall be complete including exhibits. The amended pleading shall not refer to the prior, superseding pleading."). This means that Plaintiff must allege and plead any viable claims in the original Complaint again.
In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify the nature of each separate legal claim and confine his allegations to those operative facts supporting each of his claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." However, Plaintiff is advised that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint should be consistent with the authorities discussed above. In addition, the First Amended Complaint may not include new Defendants or claims not reasonably related to the allegations in the previously filed complaints. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to once again utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached.
Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies described above, may result in a recommendation that this action, or portions thereof, be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action in its entirety or with respect to particular Defendants or claims, he may voluntarily dismiss all or any part of this action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience.
IT IS SO ORDERED.