The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Kevin Fields ("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 initiated this action on October 2, 2009. His original Complaint is currently before the Court for screening. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
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 and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is a prisoner currently housed in the secured housing unit at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. He brings this action against the following Defendants: T. Lloren, M. Kimbrell, J. Jones, A. Morrison, C.D. Battles, A.C. Garcia, and Does 1-25, who are all employees of the CDCR at Corcoran.
The entirety of the factual allegations in this case are as follows:
9.) Defendants T. Lloren, A. Morrison, D.C. Battles, R.C. Garcia, M. Kimbrell, J. Jones conspired inter se to retaliate against Plaintiff for exercising his rights to file and maintain lawsuits against prison officials, which is a protected cnduct within the meaning of the fist amendment to the United States Constitution.
10.) As direct result of the Defendants' actions, I suffered a violation of my constitutional rights resulting in actual injuries in Criminal Case No. 08cm7005 Superior Court County of Kings.
(ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff asks the Court for a declaratory judgment stating that he has the right to file and maintain lawsuits, to enjoin Defendants from violating his constitutional rights, for compensatory, ...