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.

Fordjour v. Hartley

July 15, 2010

CHARLES FORDJOUR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES HARTLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS (Doc. 9)

Plaintiff Charles Fordjour ("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") and is currently incarcerated at Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California. However, the events described in Plaintiff's complaint took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at several other detention facilities. Plaintiff is suing under section 1983 for the violation of his constitutional rights stemming from an alleged conspiracy to murder Plaintiff and alleged illegal government experiments conducted on Plaintiff without his consent. Plaintiff names more than 30 individuals and organizations as defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without leave to amend.

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 December 17, 2007. (Doc. #1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint on June 24, 2008. (Doc. #7.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failing to state any claims and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on July 25, 2008. (Doc. #9.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff's first amended complaint consists of a confusing narrative chronicling Plaintiff's belief that prison officials conspired to murder Plaintiff and conduct illegal government experiments on him. Plaintiff names more than 30 individuals and organizations as Defendants. The persons and groups named as Defendants range from correctional officers, wardens, district attorneys, sheriffs, medical personnel, engineers, the California Corrections Peace Officers Association, and a reality television show identified as "All the Way Live DBA XYZ Corporation." (First Am. Compl. 3:17-5:14, ECF No. 9.*fn1

Plaintiff vaguely alleges that he was unlawfully arrested on December 17, 2006 for a parole violation and was transported to San Quentin State Prison ("San Quentin"). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Robert L. Ayers, the associate deputy warden at San Quentin, issued "an illegal memorandum and illegal death warrant to have plaintiff Fordjour kill/murdered[sic] for filing CDCR 602 grievances complaints[sic] against CDCR officers Fitts, McNeal, and Snider." (First Am. Compl. 8:11-16, ECF No. 9.) On July 11, 2007 Plaintiff was transferred from San Quentin to Avenal State Prison ("ASP"). The "illegal death warrant" allegedly followed Plaintiff to ASP. Plaintiff was allegedly sent to ASP to be murdered and the "CDCR administration are been[sic] paid to watch the murder on video." (First Am. Compl. 8:21-26, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff claims that various officials at ASP reviewed the death warrant and made various updates to it. Plaintiff claims that he "was subjected to daily attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder since from[sic] July 11, 2007 through April 15, 2008." (First Am. Compl. 9:26-28, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff explains that Defendants "improperly and intentionally falsified the mental health records to make Plaintiff a mental patient . . . to cover-up the murder plot to murder Plaintiff." (First Am. Compl. 10:9-13, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff claims that CDCR administration "hand-picked inmates and groups of inmates promised ransome[sic] money of $10,000.00." (First Am. Compl. 12:7-10, ECF No. 9.)

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants conducted "illegal governmental experiments" on Plaintiff at Coalinga Regional Medical Center. (First Am. Compl. 14:3-10, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff claims that doctors and engineers subjected Plaintiff to several tests, such as "blood test every two hours, CT scans of his head, several IV's[sic], MRI scans, MRI head scans, nuclear stress test with acceleration of the heart by chemical means." (First Am. Compl. 13:21-27.) Plaintiff claims that the tests were done without his consent. He further claims that the "illegal government experiments" caused "Plaintiff permanent and irreparable injuries as a cyborg, similar to lobotomy, torture by electronic stimulation, erasing of brain memory by electronic means and medium, poison in food and IV's injections. . . ." (First Am. Compl. 19:23-28.)

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants gave him a hearing aid that has video recording capabilities and has been recording all of Plaintiff's movements. (First Am. Compl. 16:8-13.) Plaintiff makes further confusing allegations with respect to the FBI's "joint participation" with Defendants, as well as the participation of a reality television show called "All the Way Out Live." (First Am. Compl. 17:26-28.) The Court is unable to comprehend Plaintiff's allegations regarding the FBI and "All the Way Out Live." Plaintiff contends that the reality ...


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.