The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Darryl Brown ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff originally filed his original complaint on August 24, 2006, which is before the Court for screening.
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). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 Hospital 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).
B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff is a state prisoner at Sierra Conservation Center ("SCC") in Jamestown, California where the acts he complains of allegedly occurred.
In the caption on the first page of his complaint, Plaintiff names defendants Dennis Ward and Clay Warden. However, on page three of his complaint, Plaintiff names the defendants as Nennie Ward, Senior Librarian, and R. Ryan, Vocational Vice Principal.
Plaintiff alleges that due to his school schedule he was unable to access the law library. He filed a 602 grievance regarding his inability to access the law library but agreed to withdraw the 602 grievance at the second level because he reached an agreement with R. Ryan wherein he would be allowed access to the law library outside of the hours he attended school. This agreement allegedly was breached by library staff, so Plaintiff filed 602 grievances regarding the breach of the agreement by library staff. As a result of the breach of the agreement by library staff, Plaintiff argues he "may not be able" to file a federal petition.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
It should be noted that Plaintiff's first amended complaint is extremely difficult to decipher. The entire first amended complaint is handwritten in a manner (both darkness and letter formation) that is difficult to read and is peppered with incomplete/nonsensical sentences.
Further, Plaintiff has organized his first amended complaint in a manner so as to make it extremely difficult for the Court to ascertain which facts Plaintiff believes show violation(s) of his constitutional rights. Further, Plaintiff does not specify which of his constitutional rights he feels were violated. It is Plaintiff's duty to specify his claims for relief and their factual bases against each named defendant. However, the Court directs Plaintiff to the following legal ...