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.

Thompson v. Altamerano

March 18, 2010

CURTIS THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALTAMERANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION (Doc. 17) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Curtis Thompson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 ("CDCR"). Plaintiff names Altamerando,

R. Reyes, and K. Clark as defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's first amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will recommend that Plaintiff's first amended complaint be dismissed with 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 January 2, 2008. (Doc. #1.) On May 20, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court found that Plaintiff's original complaint failed to state any claims upon which relief can be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. On August 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (Doc. #17.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff does not provide any clear factual allegations in his first amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a form complaint for civil rights actions under section 1983. Under the section titled "Statement of Claim," Plaintiff writes:

I have or should I say fall under crontic[sic] care of the medical procedure at Corcoran and esp Sacramento. I would be going to court to have my claim heard in court in a trial. I'm being denied PLU deadline on court order to obtain my legal documents. I am disability. I can't see due to medical issue.

Under the section titled "Relief," Plaintiff writes "I have filed into your court this 1983 civil standard claim in order to seek the relief that I must seek into your court for the ...


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.