ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff Mark Savage ("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 April 14, 2011. (ECF No. 1.)
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 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 brings this action for violations of the First and Eighth Amendments. Plaintiff names Tomas Villagrana as the lone Defendant.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: From August 2008 until January 2010, Plaintiff worked for the Prison Industry Authority ("PIA") as a hand packer and Defendant Villagrana was his direct supervisor. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff voiced concerns about operations, rules, policies, and practices in the shop. In November 2009, Plaintiff expressed these concerns to other inmate employees as well as Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff was concerned that Defendant was unsuited for his supervisory role in the shop and told everyone that he was going to file a grievance. In December 2009, Defendant created a report stating that Plaintiff "needs to limit his complaints to . . . justifiable situations." This report was placed in Plaintiff's central file. On January 17, 2010, Defendant filed a false rules violation report ("RVR") alleging that Plaintiff had spit into the peanut butter packaging machine. Video footage of Plaintiff's conduct was also provided. Because of the RVR, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation ("ad-seg") pending investigation and resolution of the matter. The rehousing caused Plaintiff to lose his job. On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff was found not guilty of the alleged rule violation.
During Plaintiff's placement in ad-seg, Defendant told the other inmate employees that Plaintiff had spit into the peanut butter. Defendant told the inmate employees to spread this information to the rest of the inmate population. Plaintiff began being harassed by prison guards and hearing about threats to his safety from other prisoners.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and declaratory relief.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was ...