Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Nieves v. Patrick

February 9, 2009

SANDI NIEVES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEBORAH PATRICK, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS TO AMEND (Doc. 22) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS (Doc. 1)

Order Denying as Moot Motion to Withdraw Motions to Amend

Plaintiff Sandi Nieves ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on December 13, 2007. On October 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed two motions to amend her complaint. (Docs. 17, 18). On January 16, 2009, the Court issued an order advising Plaintiff that she was not permitted to file her amended complaint piecemeal, and ordered Plaintiff to file a complete first amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 21).

On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw her motions to amend. As the court has already addressed and resolved the motions to amend, Plaintiff's request is denied as moot. Plaintiff also requested that the action proceed forward on her complaint without amendment. Accordingly, this action shall proceed on Plaintiff's original complaint, filed December 13, 2007.

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

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).

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is currently housed at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, California, where the events giving rise to this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names Warden Deborah Patrick, Associate Director of Adult Inmates for C.D.C.R Wendy Stills, Secretary James Tilton, Director of Adult Inmates Tremble, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as defendants. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief.

Plaintiff alleges that she is a death sentenced inmate and that she, along with fifteen other women, are being housed in cages and segregated from general population because of their sentences. Plaintiff alleges that the segregation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint and finds that it does not state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. In the subsections that follow, plaintiff is provided with the legal standards applicable to the claim she is attempting to pursue. In amending her claim, plaintiff should carefully review the standards that apply and amend only those claims that she believes, in good faith, are cognizable under section 1983.

A. Action Against C.D.C.R.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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