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.

Kevin E. Fields v. T. Lloren

September 12, 2011

KEVIN E. FIELDS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. LLOREN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 10)

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 2, 2009, Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on December 10, 2010. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, now before the Court for screening, on December 17, 2010. (ECF No. 10.)

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious," or 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).

Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The First Amended Complaint alleges the following named defendants violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights: (1) Teresa Lloren, Staff Service Representative at Corcoran State Prison ("Corcoran") and (2) D.C. Battles, Correctional Sergeant at Corcoran.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

On May 5, 2008 Plaintiff requested permission from Defendant Battles to use the phone pursuant to a court order. Defendant Battles would not allow Plaintiff to make a phone call without approval from the litigation office. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff sent a copy of the order to Defendant Lloren the same day and requested that Lloren grant the approval required by Defendant Battles. (Id. at 3, 4.) Plaintiff was not granted permission to make the phone call. (Id. at 4.) On May 11, 2008 Plaintiff filed an emergency appeal, requesting "that Plaintiff be allowed to make his court ordered call immediately; [and] that the [Defendants] cease/desist retaliating against Plaintiff . . . ." (Id.) Defendant Lloren responded to Plaintiff's emergency appeal on June 16, 2008 by asserting that Plaintiff in fact made the court ordered phone call on May 8, 2008. According to Plaintiff, he did not make a phone call.

On June 17, 2008 Defendant Lloren "authored a false rules violation report" charging Plaintiff with "abuse of the penal system." (Id.) Correctional Lieutenant F. Martinez voided Defendant Lloren's rules violation report, wiping it from Plaintiff's record. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant Lloren authored a false rules violation report and Defendant Battles endorsed it. The Defendants submitted the report in retaliation for Plaintiff filing appeals complaining of their conduct. (Id.) Plaintiff concludes that the aforementioned conduct was a constitutional violation as it "had a chilling effect, . . . did not serve to advance any legitimate penological interest and/or correctional goal . . ...


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.