The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT SHAWNEGO ON DUE PROCESS CLAIM (Doc.1)
Plaintiff Carmon Warren, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 29, 2003. The action was dismissed on February 23, 2005, based on a finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pursuant to the Court's order of November 23, 2010, Plaintiff's motion to set aside judgment and reopen the case was granted and the undersigned was directed to screen the complaint.
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.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, and while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not, id. at 1949.
III. Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. The events at issue in this action occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran in 2002. The defendants in this action are S. Shawnego, an education instructor; W. Phillips, a lieutenant; and John Doe #1/Dr. Goddard, an academic instructor and Shawnego's immediate supervisor.*fn1 Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment as relief.
On or around June 19, 2002, Plaintiff was summoned to the lieutenant's office and questioned regarding an incident involving Defendant Shawnego. Plaintiff said that he entered her classroom in the course of his duties as a porter and she informed him that his zipper was down. Plaintiff exited the classroom, zipped his pants, reentered the classroom, cleaned, and left. Also present during the incident was Defendant Shawnego's clerk, inmate Johnson, although at the time Plaintiff did not know his name. Plaintiff was informed by Defendant Phillips and Lt. Vella that he was being charged with indecent exposure for walking into Defendant Shawengo's classroom with his pants unzipped and his penis exposed. Plaintiff was then placed in administrative segregation.
On July 7, 2002, Plaintiff was interviewed by the Investigative Service Unit. Plaintiff was told that Defendant Shawnego was under investigation for over familiarity with an inmate and investigators believed the rules violation she issued Plaintiff was false. Investigators believed Plaintiff entered the classroom, walked in on or saw something he should not have seen, and then ...