The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 3)
Plaintiff Raymond George Glass ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action on July 9, 2009 with a pleading titled "Letter of Request for Removal to Federal Court Under 28 U.S.CA § 1441(D) By A 'Foreign State'". (ECF No. 1.) He has since filed another document entitled "Addendum to Letter of Request for Removal to Federal Court Under 28 U.S.CA § 1441(D) By a 'Foreign State'" on July 24, 2009. (ECF No. 3.) The Court treats Plaintiff's "Requests" as Complaints.
Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on August 3, 2009. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in this action.
The Addendum to Letter of Request is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
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 (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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
From Plaintiff's filings, it appears he is complaining about a prison disciplinary board hearing. However, it is extremely difficult to discern precisely what he is claiming, who the defendants are, and what relief Plaintiff seeks. (If Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Complaint, he will benefit his cause by describing in detail the disciplinary hearing at issue and only facts pertinent to it. It is not necessary for him to discuss his status as a Third Party Intervenor*fn1 nor include attachments regarding it, unless relevant to some wrong alleged in connection with the disciplinary hearing.)
In his Addendum, Plaintiff alleges the following: On July 17, 2009, he was brought before a prison disciplinary board for a hearing. The hearing was held before numerous officers including Defendant White. The Hearing Lieutenant refused to accept any documentation from Plaintiff and would not allow him to present a defense because he would not disclose his reading level. Plaintiff was removed from the hearing prior to its commencement. All other attendees remained.
The Court is not able to determine what relief Plaintiff seeks other than to be ...