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.

Wyatt v. Chapman

March 22, 2010

DAVID WYATT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. CHAPMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. 1, 8, 9)

Order Following Screening

I. Background

Plaintiff David Wyatt, a state prisoner at the time of filing suit, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff filed this action on July 17, 2009. On November 13, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint required Plaintiff either to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only against Defendants Zanchi and Jones. (Doc. 8.) On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response, indicating that he did not wish to amend and would proceed only against Defendants Zanchi and Jones. The Court issues the following order.

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).

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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949.

II. Plaintiff's Claims

The events giving rise to this action allegedly occurred at California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California, where Plaintiff was previously housed. On February 13, 2008, Plaintiff appeared for a hearing before the Classification Committee, comprised of Defendants Dalio, Steadman, Schulteis, McLaughlin, and Haining. Plaintiff was asked where he would prefer to be transferred upon the completion of his Security Housing Unit ("SHU") term. Plaintiff requested a transfer to CSP- Sac or Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). The Committee indicated that Plaintiff would be transferred to 4A-Facility after the completion of his SHU term, followed by a transfer to either CSP-SAC or SVSP. Plaintiff informed the Committee that Officer Ybarra worked in 4A-Facility and that Plaintiff had previously been found guilty of threatening Officer Ybarra and assessed a SHU term. Plaintiff informed the Committee that he did not want to be near Officer Ybarra.

On March 27, 2008, Plaintiff was moved to 4A-Facility. On April 9, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before the 4A-Facility Unit Classification Committee members Defendants Rhodes, Stallcup, Thompson, Lara, Cole, and Chapman. Plaintiff stated that he did not want to be near Officer Ybarra and was told that he had nothing to worry about.

In or around June 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to the building where Officer Ybarra worked. The following day, Officer Ybarra threatened to "take care" of Plaintiff.

On July 9, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before a Committee and inquired into his transfer to a different prison. The Committee, comprised of Defendants Liles, Chapman, Cole, Stallcup, Thompson, and Van Blake, recommended that Plaintiff be transferred to either CSP-Sac or SVSP. On July 24, 2008, Plaintiff received notice that the Classification Staff Representative ("CSR") Defendant Barkley had disregarded the recommendation and endorsed Plaintiff to remain at CCI. On August 6, 2008, Defendants ...


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.