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.

Calloway v. Warden Corcoran State Prison

January 27, 2010

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN CORCORAN STATE PRISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS (Doc. 28)

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and was incarcerated at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California ("CSP-Corcoran") and the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF-CSP") at the time the events in his complaint took place. Plaintiff is suing under section 1983 for the violation of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff names 36 prison officials and health care professionals as defendants, as well as 10 "Doe" defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendants Montgomery, Babb, Spears, Bhatt, Kappa, and Jane Doe for the violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Court finds that Plaintiff's remaining claims are unrelated and cannot be brought together in a single lawsuit under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court recommends that these claims be dismissed without prejudice.

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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 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)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on October 11, 2005. (Doc. #1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on January 11, 2006 (Doc. #8) and filed a first amended complaint on March 13, 2006 (Doc. #13). Plaintiff's motion to amend was granted on July 18, 2006.

(Doc. #18.) On December 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude his first amended complaint and serve Defendants with his original complaint. (Doc. #21.) Plaintiff's motion was granted and his original complaint was screened on November 28, 2007. (Doc. #26.) Some of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed and Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 13, 2007. (Doc. #28.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's December 13, 2007 amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff is an African-American inmate currently housed at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California ("CSP-Corcoran"). Plaintiff's complaint also describes events that occurred at his previous prison, the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF-CSP").

On March 12, 2003, unknown officers from the Investigative Service Unit ("ISU") took Plaintiff to the shower and stripped searched him for contraband. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff's cell was also searched but no contraband was found. (Compl. ¶ 5.) On March 13, 2003, Plaintiff's stomach and pelvic area was x-rayed for contraband, but none was found. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Defendant Montgomery would not reveal the reasons for the searches to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 7.) On March 14, 2003, Defendants Montgomery, Babb, Spears, and Doe "focused" their pepper spray cans at Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 8.) The officers escorted Plaintiff to an office and threatened Plaintiff with physical harm if he did not tell them where he hid the drugs they were looking for. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff told the officers that he did not hide any drugs. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff was then given another round of x-rays. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Defendant Bhatt told Montgomery that no drugs were found. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Montgomery then ordered Bhatt to give Plaintiff an enema. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Montgomery ordered Babb, Spears and Doe to escort Plaintiff to the clinic. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Defendant Kappa administered the enema, which was done in the presence of females working in the clinic. (Compl. ¶ 15.) No contraband was found during the search. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Kennedy, Phillips, Montgomery, Babb and Spears on March 14, 2003. (Compl. ¶ 16.) It is unclear why Plaintiff filed a complaint against Kennedy or Phillips, as Plaintiff does not allege that they participated in any of the searches.

Plaintiff alleges that Kennedy and Phillips retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaint on March 16, 2003. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Phillip told Plaintiff that he received information from confidential sources that Plaintiff would be stabbed if he remained in the general population yard. (Compl. ¶ 17.) As a result, Plaintiff 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.