The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 21) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THIRD SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff James Suknaich ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on March 13, 2009, and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 27, 2009. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff's original Complaint and First Amended Complaint were dismissed on June 26, 2009 and December 13, 2010, respectively, both for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF Nos. 1, 13, 10, & 18.) Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, and his Second Amended Complaint was filed March 14, 2011. (ECF No. 21.) It is this Second Amended Complaint that is now before the Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Second 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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff sues the following individuals for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be protected: Wasco Warden; Hartley, Captain; Castro, MTA; Johnson, CO; and John and Jane Does 1 -10*fn1 . At the time of the incident, all Defendants were employed at Wasco State Prison ("WSP").
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On September 8, 2005, Plaintiff was attacked and beaten by other inmates at WSP. Plaintiff, who is a "sensitive needs yard" ("SNY") prisoner*fn2 , was with a prison escort in an area cleared for SNY inmates. Several general population ("GP") inmates were left by their escorting guard in the same area. The SNY escort informed the GP inmates that Plaintiff was an SNY inmate. Several of the GP inmates then attacked Plaintiff.
Plaintiff seeks compensation for his injuries and broken glasses and punitive damages.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an ...