Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Knowles

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 17, 2008

BRYAN DAVIS, SR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
KNOWLES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff's amended complaint.

On November 1, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff's original complaint and set out the legal standards governing the claims it appeared plaintiff was attempting to present. It was difficult for the court to determine the precise nature of plaintiff's claims and he was advised of the needed to clarify the nature of his claims in any amended complaint.

Plaintiff's amended complaint continues to be defective. It appears that plaintiff is alleging that there is a conspiracy among correctional officers and inmates to remove plaintiff's papers from his cell. Also, plaintiff contends that for safety reasons he does not want to have a cell mate but has been informed by prison officials that he must find a cell mate.

In the court's November 1, 2007 order, plaintiff was advised of the legal standards governing claims alleging inadequate medical care, deliberate indifference to his housing needs, failure to protect, interference with access to court, and conspiracy. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient factual allegations in his amended complaint to support any such claims. Plaintiff has not explained the significance of the papers that were allegedly removed from his cell, nor has he provided allegations that the loss of those papers has prevented his access to the court. Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm if housed with a cell mate or that defendants are deliberately indifferent about his safety. In addition, plaintiff has not provided any factual allegations suggesting a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. Therefore, this action should be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim. See Neizke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20080917

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.