ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 20) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Joaquin Ramon Quiroz ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action December 17, 2009 and he consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on December 31, 2009. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on March 21, 2011. (ECF No. 20.) This First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's First 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 is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison.
On September 10, 2007, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation following an assault with a deadly weapon on another inmate. Plaintiff was given 13 months in the Secured Housing Unit ("SHU") for this incident.
On August 20, 2008, the Corcoran State Prison hearing committee recommended Plaintiff be transferred to the general population yard and that all of his privileges be reinstated.*fn1 Plaintiff arrived at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") on November 17, 2008. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Reynoso on December 19, 2008. Reynoso found that, because Plaintiff had been in the SHU for assault, he should be placed in the Behavioral Management Unit ("BMU") at CSATF. When Plaintiff complained about the placement, he was told that CSATF "runs its own program." (ECF No. 20, Pl's. Am. Compl. p. 3.) While housed in the BMU, Plaintiff was denied outdoor exercise and deprived of his property and contact visits.
Plaintiff seeks nominal and punitive damages.
For the reasons set forth below Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff shall be given one additional opportunity to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this Order. In the paragraphs that follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to his claims. Plaintiff should carefully review the standards and amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are cognizable.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...