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.

Patrick Williams v. Department of Corrections

January 12, 2011

PATRICK WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 22)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Patrick Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 17, 2007. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed April 20, 2009.

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 (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.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Procedural History

This action has been pending for almost four years, during which time Plaintiff has been incarcerated at California State Prison-Represa, also known as New Folsom State Prison. Plaintiff's original complaint set forth claims arising from events at New Folsom and at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison. The Court dismissed that complaint on November 21, 2008, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

Plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December 5, 2008, and it set forth a claim against the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. The amended complaint was dismissed on March 27, 2009, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed April 20, 2009, sets forth claims exclusively against staff at New Folsom. Plaintiff seeks damages, equitable relief, and the appointment of counsel; and names Warden Jimmy Walker, Captain D. Leiber, and Correctional Officers R. Miranda, B. Bishop, C. L. Cannedy, and B. Mandeville as defendants. Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff's claims arise out of retaliation against him, the denial of due process in conjunction with his placement in administrative segregation, and the disregard of his safety and medical needs. Plaintiff also alleges improprieties regarding his prison grievances.

B. Second Amended Complaint

1. Motion for Appointment ...


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.