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.

Rouser v. Nieto

July 7, 2010

WILLIAM ROUSER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. NIETO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. PROCEEDINGS

On November 23, 2009, plaintiff William Rouser ("Plaintiff"), a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 On December 14, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court screened the Complaint and found it wanting in several significant respects: (1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim based on the processing of his grievances; (3) all defendants were immune from liability in their official capacities; (4) the factual allegations in the Complaint failed to state a claim against two of the defendants; and (5) Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies. (Court's Dec. 14, 2009 Order at 5-11.) Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (Id. at 12.)

On January 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against nine defendants:

(1) Warden Haws*fn2 ;

(2) Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("Secretary Cate");

(3) E. Goodloe, mail room supervisor at CSP-LA ("Supervisor Goodloe");

(4) John Doe, appeals coordinator at CSP-LA ("Appeals Coordinator");

(5) John Doe, assignment lieutenant at CSP-LA ("Assignment Lieutenant");

(6) P. Boetsch, law librarian at CSP-LA ("Librarian Boetsch");

(7) M. Nieto, correctional officer at CSP-LA ("Officer Nieto");

(8) T. Phan, correctional officer at CSP-LA ("Officer Phan"); and

(9) Captain Fortson, captain at CSP-LA. (FAC at 2-4.)

Each of the defendants is sued in his or her individual capacity only. (Id.)

As detailed below, the FAC continues to suffer from a number of infirmities, and again merits dismissal. The Court shall afford Plaintiff leave to amend, but Plaintiff is cautioned that, if he fails to comply with the requirements set forth in both the Court's earlier Order of December 14, 2009 and now this Order, the Court may recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice.

II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

In a prolix and obscure manner, Plaintiff attempts to set out three claims for relief based on five separate incidents or series of incidents that allegedly occurred at CSP-LA. For ease of reference, each of these incidents is summarized below.

A. Denial of Access to Law Library

Plaintiff contends that Librarian Boetsch denied him access to the law library at CSP-LA. (FAC at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred from Pleasant Valley State Prison to CSP-LA. (Id.) At that time, Plaintiff was proceeding pro se in six court cases and retained "PLU" (preferred legal usage) status because he had "legal deadlines" within thirty days. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he sent requests to Librarian Boetsch for permission to use the library, but Boetsch never responded. (FAC at 4.) Plaintiff further claims that he "was denied law library access two and three weeks at a time," and when he was granted permission, "it was never more th[a]n two hours a week." (Id.) Plaintiff states that he submitted three "602" grievances in response to the denial of library access. (Id.) The number "602" refers to a specific California Department of Corrections form used by inmates to lodge grievances.

B. Denial of Employment

On August 19, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that he went to "Classification" to apply for a job. (FAC at 4.) Plaintiff was placed on a "workers waiting list for support services and a clerk position[.]" (Id. at 4-5.) However, Plaintiff contends that the Assignment Lieutenant "refused to give Plaintiff a job[,]" and instead awarded jobs to other individuals who should not have been hired before Plaintiff -- in Plaintiff's ...


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.