ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff Leroy Dewitt Hunter ("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 February 11, 2011 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on March 1, 2011. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) 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 right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: K. Harrington, Warden; M.D. Biter, Warden; T. Artlitz, A.W.; J. Garza, Captain; R. Thomas, CCII; S. Cranmer, CCII; Goree, CCII; T. Yang, CCII; Ursher, CCI; M.A. Hernandez, CCI; Harris, Lieutenant; Jose, Sergeant; Jones, Sergeant; and Alcantar, Correctional Officer.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On April 2, 2010, Kern Valley Defendants and Platt refused to comply with Title 115 Rules. They would not apply the numerical weights and measures to Plaintiff to drop his security level. On July 14, 2010, during a classification hearing, Plaintiff was told that Title 15 was not valid and that if he did not like it, he could file an appeal with the prison.
Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation and injunctive relief.
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 ...