ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Nathan Anderson ("Plaintiff"), an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), 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 November 15, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared.
Plaintiff's Complaint is now before this Court for screening. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims.
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 brings this action for failure to protect and being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Sgt. De La Cruz, C/O Luquin, and C/O Cota.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: On August 15, 2010, Plaintiff's life was verbally threatened by his cellmate. Plaintiff told an officer about the threats and requested to change cells. Plaintiff was taken to a holding cage where he was interviewed by Defendant De La Cruz. Defendant De La Cruz did not agree to a move and placed Plaintiff back in his cell. On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff flagged down Defendant Luquin, who ignored Plaintiff's pleas. Defendant Cota came to the cell to take Plaintiff out for afternoon yard. Cota placed restraints on Plaintiff, but failed to cuff-up Plaintiff's cellmate. Plaintiff was struck on his left ear causing it to bleed.
After the attack, Plaintiff was approached by Defendant Cota. Defendant Cota wanted Plaintiff to say that the cellmate had attacked Plaintiff with his head, instead of that Cota had failed to put cuffs on cellmate and he then used his fists to attack Plaintiff.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...