COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN / THIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Francis T. Wililamson ("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 January 28, 2011 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on February 9, 2011. (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 rights to due process and equal protection. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: James Yates, R. Fisher, Jr., D. Foreman, F. Douthat, L. Harton, G. Noel, and J. Morgan.
Plaintiff alleges the following: Defendant Foreman, Douthat, Harton, Noel, and Morgan deal with inmate appeals in the Appeals Coordinator's Office at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"). Plaintiff submitted numerous CDCR GA-22 forms and inmate appeals addressing the issue of a Recall of Commitment Recommendation Consideration pursuant to § 3076, Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. Plaintiff received no response to any of his requests. A Recall of Commitment Recommendation Consideration is a process by which the Director of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may recommend at any time to the sentencing court the recall of an inmate's commitment. Id. This can happen for a variety of reasons including when information which was not made available to the court in pronouncing the inmates sentence is brought to the attention of the Director who thinks that the information would have influenced the sentence imposed by the court. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3076(a)(2).
Plaintiff seeks actual damages, reimbursement for all costs and expenses of litigation, and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from further violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
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 ...