The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE GRANTED TO AMEND
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Alden Pauline's prisoner civil
rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1
Plaintiff claims that the Department of Public Safety
("DPS"), the Halawa Correctional Facility ("HCF") and Oahu Community
Correctional Center ("OCCC") Administrations and medical departments,
retaliated against him for reporting illegal activities at OCCC,
thereafter failed to protect him, and denied him medical care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks a transfer to a
safer facility for his protection.
For the following reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915(A)(b)(1), for failure to state a claim. Because it is possible that Plaintiff can cure the Complaint's deficiencies, he is granted leave to amend.
The court must screen all civil actions brought by prisoners that relate to prison conditions and/or seek redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if its claims are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (c)(1).
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim, a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.
"[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff's specific factual allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other "more likely explanations" for a defendant's conduct. Id. at 1951.
The court must construe a pro se complaint liberally, accept all allegations of material fact as true, and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). A "complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] 'must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defects of his or her complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice "would undermine district judges' role as impartial decisionmakers." Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies).
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff claims that, when he was incarcerated at OCCC, he informed unnamed prison officials that unnamed prison guards were taking drugs with inmates at the prison. ECF #1, Compl. at 5, Count I. Plaintiff alleges that, thereafter, three unnamed inmates and two unnamed prison guards attacked him. Plaintiff states that OCCC officials then transferred him to HCF, presumably for his safety, but he alleges that he remains in danger because the prison guards at HCF are related to the OCCC prison guards. Id.
Plaintiff next alleges that HCF officials are aware that the OCCC and HCF guards are related, and know that the HCF guards are threatening him. Compl. at 6, Count II. Plaintiff claims that unnamed HCF guards have retaliated against him for filing grievances by putting glass in his food, refusing him razors, and failing to investigate his claims on unspecified dates. Id.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that unnamed OCCC and HCF medical personnel refused to treat his unspecified injuries, on unspecified dates, despite his pain. Compl. at 7, Count III.
Plaintiff names no individual defendants and seeks only injunctive relief in the form of a protective transfer from HCF.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) the defendant must be a person acting under color of state law; and
(2) his conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327(1986). When a plaintiff fails to ...