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.

Michael Reed Dorrough v. S. Hubbard

August 10, 2011

MICHAEL REED DORROUGH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. HUBBARD, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (DOC. 1)

Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Reed Dorrough ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on February 7, 2011. Doc. 1.

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 Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison ("CSP"), where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants S. Hubbard, director of CDCR; former warden Derral Adams; chief deputy warden R. Davis; CC II R. Chavez, and associate warden of the security housing unit ("SHU") M. Jenning.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff has been housed in the SHU for non-disciplinary reasons for twenty-two years. Plaintiff was validated as a prison gang member or associate. Plaintiff is denied any access to meaningful rehabilitation or education opportunities. Plaintiff is housed in a cell with only enough room for one person to walk around in. Plaintiff complains that the toilet can only flush twice every 12 minutes, thus leading to a build-up of human odor. Plaintiff complains that the light is on in his cell for 24 hours a day. Plaintiff contends that he should have been provided alternate housing.

Plaintiff complains that he is not allowed contact visits or phone calls except for emergencies. Plaintiff complains that he may go outside to the metal yard cages two times per week, for three hours. Plaintiff complains that he is allowed only one package per year, one appliance, and a tv or radio. Plaintiff complains that he is only allowed 1 shampoo, 2 bars of soap, 2 tubes of toothpaste, and 1 stick of deodorant, which can only be purchased once a month. Plaintiff complains that he is only provided one bar of soap, one toothbrush, and tooth powder weekly. Plaintiff complains that he is only allowed one ink pen filler every two weeks. Plaintiff complains of the lack of cleaning supplies.

Plaintiff suffers from depression and is required to take medication for it. Plaintiff is also prescribed medications to help him sleep. Plaintiff complains that he should be provided a meaningful program within a non-SHU, non-general population environment.

Plaintiff contends that he has a due process right to be free from confinement in the SHU for non-disciplinary reasons. Plaintiff contends a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff requests as relief monetary damages, and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from subjecting Plaintiff to further harm.

III. Analysis

A. Eighth ...


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.