Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00460/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00460-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOOKER T. HILLERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0460 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff has consented to have all matters 

in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:16-cv-00460-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court has conducted the required review of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. As 

in his original and amended complaints, plaintiff complains about dental care. As plaintiff has 

been previously informed, in order to state a claim for inadequate medical or dental care under the 

Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts showing a defendant was, at minimum, 

deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). 

Again, plaintiff has not done that. While he appears to complain about various injuries, he fails to 

allege facts indicating any injury was the result of a defendant’s deliberate indifference. 1 

For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The court will dismiss this action without granting plaintiff leave to amend a third time, as that 

appears futile.

/////

/////

 

1

 Among other things, plaintiff asserts his jaw was x-rayed three times despite it being clear in 

his medical file that plaintiff is allergic to radiation. However, plaintiff fails to indicate who 

ordered the x-rays, or that that person had knowledge of plaintiff’s alleged allergy. 

Case 2:16-cv-00460-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. This case is closed.

Dated: August 17, 2016

1

hill0460.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00460-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3