The opinion of the court was delivered by: Helen Gillmor Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff Carl White filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 In his Complaint, (Doc. 1), Plaintiff sets forth one cause of action.
Plaintiff alleges he has been wrongfully identified as a sex offender, resulting in a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Complaint ("Compl."), at 3-4, Doc. 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the misidentification stems from a report filed by the officers of the Modesto Police Department in 1991. The officers allegedly inaccurately reported that Plaintiff was arrested on June 2, 1991 for violating penal code § 288(a).*fn2
(Id. at 3.) As a result, Plaintiff claims he was misidentified during the classification procedure. An "R" suffix was used in his custody designation. The sex offender designation has allegedly placed Plaintiff's life in jeopardy.
Plaintiff names the California Department of Corrections (CDC), the Modesto Police Department, and fourteen employees of the CDC in their official capacities alleging violations of Plaintiff's due process rights.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of removal of any identification of him as a sex offender from Plaintiff's prisoner file, including the removal of the "R" suffix and any reference to the "R" suffix. (Id. at 3.)
For the following reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
STATUTORY SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
A federal district court is required to screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from 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 a plaintiff raises 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) and (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).
During screening, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Tr., 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); Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (the court must construe pro se pleadings liberally and afford the pro se litigant the benefit of any doubt). The court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
If the court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). A district court should not, however, advise the litigant on how to cure the defects. Such advice "would undermine district judges' ...