COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Percy Stockton ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 30, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on May 17, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before this Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed 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 appears to be arguing that Defendants violated his due process rights by not giving him a copy of his prison file. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: T. Billings, Appeals Coordinator; J. Flory, Corrections Counselor 1; N. Grannis, Chief Inmate Appeals; C. Pfeiffer, Appeals Coordinator; Two KVSP Unknown CCIs; and W. Adams, CCII.
Plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff filed 602 grievances and other paperwork requesting a copy of his entire prison file. In one of the response received, Plaintiff was directed to file an appeal with the Records department and not his CCI because the CCI did not have authority to access the file. In another response, Plaintiff was told that his file was too large and that, pursuant to CDCR regulations, it would take up more space than he is allowed for paperwork. Finally, several responses stated that Plaintiff had not followed the appeal procedures and that the appropriate time to file a grievance/appeal had lapsed.
Plaintiff seeks the right to have his prison file copied, a reprimand for Defendants, court costs, copies of his file, and due process 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 action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal ...