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.

Lonnie Donell Perkins v. R. Crum

June 9, 2011

LONNIE DONELL PERKINS
PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. CRUM, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Lonnie Donell Perkins ("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 on June 21, 2010 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on July 26, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) No other parties have appeared.

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any claims 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 his Eighth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: R. Crum, J.R. Garza, Everett W. Fischer, G. Williams, M. Ruff, O.C. Harris, J. Ostrander, C. Pfeiffer, C.J. Chrones, N. Grannis, and J. Batchelor. Above referenced Defendants all worked at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff also lists R. Clemons, C/O at Los Angeles County at Lancaster prison.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: Defendant Clemons placed a false confidential disclosure form (CDC 1030) in Plaintiff's prison file on June 15, 2006. On August 14, 2006, Plaintiff was placed in segregation for an investigation into his alleged association with a prison gang. Defendant Crum wrote a false validation report citing four sources which Plaintiff received on that same date. Defendant Garza approved and submitted the false report on September 5, 2006. Defendants Fischer, Williams, and Ruff were on the committee that reviewed the false report and accepted all four sources as valid on October 4, 2006, validating Plaintiff as a gang member.

On February 29, 2007, Defendant Harris interviewed Plaintiff about his inmate grievance and denied the grievance. Defendant Ostrander also denied the grievance. On April 24, 2007, Defendant Pfeiffer was assigned to investigate Plaintiff's grievance at the second level of appeal, and denied it. It was also denied by Defendant Chrones. On July 24, 2007, Defendant Batchelor denied Plaintiff's appeal at the third level. It was also denied by Defendant Grannis.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and fees and costs.

IV. ANALYSIS

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. ยง 1983. "Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal ...


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.