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 David Grant, Sr v. Warden

September 9, 2011

MICHAEL DAVID GRANT, SR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE (Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Michael David Grant, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 7, 2010. 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, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendantpersonally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff's Complaint

A. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility in Adelanto, brings this action against prison officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights in 2010 while he was confined at California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi. Plaintiff's claims arise from various conditions of confinement to which he was subjected while at CCI and from the failure to properly apply time credits to his sentence.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Camarillo and Frazier, who were correctional officers, violated his rights when they threw away a legal letter Plaintiff gave them to mail to the Internal Revenue Service. Defendants Camarillo and Frazier also refused to allow Plaintiff to shower for two weeks, purportedly because the prison was on water restriction. However, no memorandum to that effect from the warden was ever posted and inmate porters were allowed to shower daily.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Camarillo and Frazier allowed inmates who had not been cleared by the medical department for food handling to serve meals to other inmates and one inmate server working the line was positive for tuberculosis. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Camarillo and Frazier forced him to use inmate showers which were filthy and infested with black mold, and they housed him in a dayroom that was not designed for inmate housing and lacked fire sprinklers.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Warden Doe forced him to live in housing units in which the plumbing pipes were wrapped in asbestos, and that Warden Doe allowed inmate workers to handle food and work in the kitchen without clearance from the medical department.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Uzzle, a correctional officer, violated his rights by turning the air conditioning down to 45 degrees at night, when it was already cold, and turning the heater up to 90 degrees during the day, when it was already hot.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Warden Doe and Ramos violated his rights by failing to properly apply time credits ...


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.