AMENDED COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE / WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER (ECF No. 15)
Plaintiff James "Jamil" Garrett ("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 May 3, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on May 12, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on January 4, 2011, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 9 & 12.) No other parties have appeared.
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint May 20, 2011. (ECF No. 15.) This Second Amended Complaint is now before the 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 alleges violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: T. Billings, Lt. Myers, California Department of Corrections, and Mr. McGhee.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff states that the Muslim community, himself included, was denied access to the multipurpose chapel. Plaintiff states that he was also denied four ounces of oil for use in his religion.
Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring the California Department of Corrections hire a Muslim chaplain and allowing the Muslim community regular access to the multipurpose chapel.
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 Constitution and laws." Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff alleges violations of his religious exercise rights under both the First ...