The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS
Findings And Recommendation
Plaintiff Prince Deon Shotwell ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 8, 2010.
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 Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants W. A. Duncan, assistant director at the CDCR, doctor J. Chudy of the California Treatment Facility at Soledad, California, and B. Zika, a Ph. D. At CTF-Soledad. Plaintiff also names staff and medical doctors at CSATF.
Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff was hooked up to a "mind map" in order to detect Plaintiff's thoughts outwardly. Plaintiff complained of this mind map, and the grievance was granted by Defendants Zika and Chudy. However, it was not honored.
Plaintiff was then transferred to CSATF, where he again complained of a mind map being placed on his head. This grievance was screened out. Plaintiff contend a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks as relief an injunction preventing CDCR employees from harassing Plaintiff with bed moves, tampering with his mail, or retaliating against Plaintiff for filing this action. Plaintiff also requests liens against each Defendant's incomes until settlement of action.
The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of
liberty without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell
, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of action
for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first
establish the existence of a liberty interest for which the protection
is sought. Id. Liberty interests may arise from
the Due Process Clause itself or from state law. Hewitt v.
Helms , 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983). The Due
Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty
interest in being confined in the general prison population instead of
administrative segregation. See id. With respect
to liberty interests arising from state law, the existence of a
liberty interest created by prison regulations is determined by
focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v.
Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests
created by prison regulations are limited to freedom from restraint
which "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Id.
at 484. It is unclear what violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
has occurred by any defendants, if any.
Plaintiff also alleges a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but fails to plead what part of the Fifth Amendment was violated. ...