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.

KEBRA NAGAST v. TO STATE A CLAIM HOUSE OF METAMORPHOSIS

November 29, 2010

KEBRA NAGAST, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TO STATE A CLAIM HOUSE OF METAMORPHOSIS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Houston

#N-79217,

ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 12, 2010, Kebra Nagast, ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") in Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed his constitutional rights were violated at a San Diego drug and alcohol rehabilitation and recovery facility. (Compl. at 2-6, 10-15.) Plaintiff sought injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 17.)

In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 4]. On July 14, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. See July 14, 2010 Order at 7. The Court permitted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

II.

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28U.S.C.§§1915(e)(2)&1915A(b)

As the Court stated in the previous Orders, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing § 1915A).

"[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled." Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). "Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." Id.

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

A. Sixth Amendment claims

Plaintiff claims that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants denied Plaintiff "meaningful access to the federal court." (FAC at 10.) The Sixth Amendment, by its express language, "does not attach until a prosecution is commenced." McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991). Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he was subject to any criminal proceedings while he was housed at the House of Metamorphosis. Accordingly, ...


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.