The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 14.) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Docs. 13, 15.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Adonai El-Shaddai aka James R. Wilkerson*fn1 ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 5, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, and no other parties have appeared in this action. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
The Court screened Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on October 6, 2009, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he was willing to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 12.) On October 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 14.)
Plaintiff has also filed two motions for preliminary injunctive relief, in which he requests the Court to order prison officials to process all of his CDC-602 Inmate Appeals, to refrain from retaliating against him for filing this action or any CDC-602 Inmate Appeal, and to refrain from transferring him to another institution during the pendency of this action. (Docs. 13, 15.)
II. 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).
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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949.
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, brings this action for violations of his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The events at issue occurred when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF"). Plaintiff names as defendants Ken Clark (Warden of SATF), S. Zinani (Appeals Coordinator at SATF), and N. Grannis (Chief of Inmate Appeals) ("Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to issue him prayer oils, in violation of his rights to practice his religion, and failed to process his inmate appeals, denying him access to the courts. Plaintiff alleges the following facts.
On September 25, 2008, Plaintiff sent three inmate appeals to defendant Clark because defendant Zinani had refused to process the three appeals. Based upon a follow-up letter to defendant Clark on October 15, 2008, the appeals were then forwarded to defendant Zinani who deliberately misplaced or destroyed the appeals, as well as another appeal dated August 25, 2008.
On October 30, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a staff complaint against Zinani for destroying the appeals. On November 3, 2008, Zinani rejected the appeal as a duplicate and because Plaintiff filed it on the wrong form.
On November 5, 2008, Plaintiff resubmitted the appeal to Zinani with notice that it was a staff complaint. Pursuant to CCR 3084.5(e), Zinani was prohibited from participating in the reviewing process. On November 13, 2008, Zinani returned the appeal with a second response stating the appeal had been cancelled.
On November 16, 2008, Plaintiff forwarded the appeal to defendant Grannis for a Third Level response. On December 9, 2008, Grannis rejected the appeal ...