The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 27)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff LaTanya Cramer ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Plaintiff filed this action on March 17, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed Plaintiff to amend. (ECF No. 17.) On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) The Court recommended in its Findings and Recommendation that the First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.) However, after Plaintiff filed Objections, the Findings and Recommendations were vacated and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint again. (ECF Nos. 21, 22, & 25.) On March 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) The Court dismissed this complaint with leave to amend one last time. (ECF No. 26.)
On February 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint 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
Plaintiff Defendants S. Dickinson, C/O J. Dickinson, Sergeant, and Patricia A. Johnson, P.N. violated her First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights at Valley State Prison for Women as follows:
On December 18, 2005, Plaintiff's roommate was robbed, and the robbery was reported to Defendant S. Dickinson who worked in the building where Plaintiff was housed.
S. Dickinson did not do anything about the robbery, so the roommate kept pressuring Dickinson to take some kind of action. S. Dickinson became angry and finally searched Plaintiff's cell, tearing it apart.
On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff's roommate's mother called the prison complaining about S. Dickinson's conduct. Defendant S. Dickinson then retaliated against Plaintiff by claiming Plaintiff had drugs. Plaintiff was taken to an inmate restroom ...