Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Inscoe v. Yates

September 18, 2009


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



I. Screening Order

Plaintiff William Inscoe ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint on April 15, 2008, in Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff's complaint was removed to district court on October 21, 2008. (Doc. 1.) The Court struck Plaintiff's original complaint as unsigned. (Doc. 20.) On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a signed amended complaint. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff's complaint is presently before the Court for screening.

On April 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "To Assist The Court in Being Consistent with It's Sister Court and Prevent This Magistrate From Creating Chaos And Controversy." (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff contends that this Court should allow Plaintiff to proceed using a fictitious name. Plaintiff attaches a decision by this Court in another case, J. Doe v. Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01219-LJO-DLB, as support for Plaintiff's request.

Plaintiff however does not present the same concerns as J. Doe did in J. Doe's request. The Court will not issue a ruling in Plaintiff's favor solely because the Court issued a favorable ruling in a completely separate case for a completely different plaintiff. Plaintiff presents no arguments or evidence that would demonstrate good cause for Plaintiff to proceed using a fictitious name.*fn1

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to change the caption of this case is DENIED. If at a later point in the proceedings, the need for Plaintiff to proceed using a fictitious name arises, Plaintiff may file another motion presenting Plaintiff's evidence and arguments in support thereof.

A. 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 § 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)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is currently a state prisoner at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. Plaintiff was formerly housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP") where the acts he complains of occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: Lieutenant Hoyt, C/O Langley and Martinez, R.N. Reagan, and Does 1 through 10.*fn2

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff is a male to female transgender inmate.*fn3 (Doc. 21, Pl.'s First Am. Compl.¶ 3.) On or about January 14, 2008, Plaintiff was in her cell 112 when two inmates, Dizzy and Jeff Malone, entered Plaintiff's cell and raped Plaintiff. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 14.) Defendant Langley was in the control tower and opened Plaintiff's cell door while the two inmates entered the cell, beat Plaintiff until she was on the ground, and raped her against her will. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.) After they had finished raping her, they exited the cell and defendant Langley then closed the door via the control tower. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff informed defendant Reagan during the afternoon med pass of the rape. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) Reagan informed Plaintiff to go contact the C/O because Reagan did not believe Plaintiff. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff went to the office and reported the rape to defendant Martinez, who promised to contact the sergeant, but no sergeant came. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff was bleeding profusely from her rectum and her body was swollen. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 20.) The next day, Plaintiff was seen by a mental health provider. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) She informed the mental health provider of the rape, and the provider promised to contact defendant Lieutenant Hoyt. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl.¶ 21.) Plaintiff wrote a CDC 602 appeal. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) Defendant Hoyt then told Plaintiff that if it happens again to let him know, but there was nothing he could do. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 23.)

On or about February 6, 2008, Plaintiff was moved to cell 130, which is under the stairs and is considered a blind spot. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) As Plaintiff was carting her property to the new cell, inmate Jeff Malone was waiting for her there. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) He hit her in the face and side of the head and told Plaintiff that if she did not "suck his dick" he would "beat her ass." (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff complied. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff later informed a C/O of what just occurred, who then told the Plaintiff that she probably wanted to do it anyway. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff then waited until the next day, and, accompanied by another transgender inmate, went to the program office to speak with defendant Hoyt about the rape. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 26.) Hoyt then ordered Plaintiff moved from ...

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.