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.

Anthony Ray Evans v. Gonzalez

April 22, 2011

ANTHONY RAY EVANS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

(DOC. 4)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Anthony Ray Evans ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on September 2, 2010 in the Central District of California. On September 16, 2010, this case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. Doc. 4.

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 Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary Of Complaint

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: Associate Warden T.W. Steadman, acting captain B. Sanders, correctional counselor I L. Phillips, sergeant B. Mello, sergeant B. Burrows, and appeals coordinator K. Sampson. Plaintiff names Warden Gonzalez in the caption of his complaint.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff arrived at CCI on April 28, 2010 from California State Prison, Sacramento ("CSP-Sac"). Plaintiff left the CSP-Sac Security Housing Unit ("SHU") with single cell status because a history of violence against cell mates and mental health issues. The Institutional Classification Committee ("ICC"), composed of Defendants Steadman, B. Sanders, and L. Phillips, found that after review of Plaintiff's central file, Plaintiff should be placed on double cell status.

On May 13, 2010, correctional officer Little told Plaintiff that he needed to receive a cell mate. Plaintiff responded that officer Little should "do what you got to do" and "I'm not going anywhere to meet anyone, so you just go and put someone in here and see what happens." Defendant B. Mello was aware of Plaintiff's comments.

On May 13, 2010, Plaintiff was placed into a cell with another inmate. Plaintiff attacked this inmate. Defendant B. Burrows stated that he reviewed Plaintiff's records and did not find any reason why Plaintiff could not be placed in a cell with another inmate. Plaintiff contends that there is a history of violence in Plaintiff's central file.

Plaintiff was pepper-sprayed as a result of the incident. Plaintiff was partially decontaminated with water from a garden hose for three minutes. Plaintiff contends that the garden hose is not a proper decontamination remedy. Water from the hose merely rinsed the pepper spray to other areas of his body, such as his groin and anus. Plaintiff was not allowed a shower until five days afterwards. Plaintiff suffered burning and coughing during this time.

Plaintiff was housed in a clinic holding cell for eight days, as there was no room in the CCI SHU. Plaintiff was provided a mat to sleep on the floor. Plaintiff was not provided shoes, even though the floor was unsanitary from urine puddles. As a result of ...


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.