Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170516_0001003.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-01-16 21:37:51
Document Index: 390730364

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b)
Plaintiff, Morris B. Gilchrist, is currently housed at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”). On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Because Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), the Court granted him leave to proceed without full prepayment of the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 3.)
However, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court's Order. (Id. at 8.) In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that any “[d]efendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived.” (Id., citing S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).)
On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 4.) In his FAC, Plaintiff no longer names Defendants Martinez, Tong, Santos, Evangelista, Prevost, and Gore in this action. (See FAC at 1-2.) Accordingly, Defendants Martinez, Tong, Santos, Evangelista, Prevost, and Gore are DISMISSED from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these Defendants from the Court's docket.
As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, because he is currently incarcerated and is proceeding IFP, his complaint requires a pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner's IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.'” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
Plaintiff is currently housed in the SDJC. (See FAC at 1.) Plaintiff claims that he suffers from “severely torn tendons” in his “right shoulder rotator cuff.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff further claims that Defendant Alfred Joshua, SDCJ Chief Medical Officer, and Defendant Berkman, SDCJ Supervising Medical Officer, “refused to provide” Plaintiff with “medical relief.” (Id. at 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that his injury requires surgery and claims his “primary Veteran Administration Physician” indicated that his injury would “become even more ‘serious'” if left “untreated.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff acknowledges that the three physicians have “very different medical opinions.” (Id. at 10.)