Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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 A. Burkett v. Ken Clark

September 23, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge


(ECF No. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

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).

II. Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran (SATF), brings this civil rights action against correctional officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at SATF. Plaintiff names nineteen individual defendants.

Plaintiff's complaint is 131 pages long, and sets forth allegations of the following conduct by correctional officials at SATF: Plaintiff's property being distributed to other inmates; denial of food trays and portions of Plaintiff's sack lunch; denial of law library access; illegal reading of Plaintiff's mail; excessive force; retaliation; illegal cell move; placement in a management cell; delay in processing a medical injury report; false or misleading medical injury report; difficulties in processing inmate appeals; false disciplinary charges; placement in administrative segregation; complaints to staff about other inmates; deliberate flooding of Plaintiff's cell by correctional staff; "ransacking" of Plaintiff's cell; refusal to review inmate appeals; verbal harassment; denial of due process at a classification hearing; supervisory liability; erroneous classification.

Plaintiff categorizes his allegations in eleven discrete causes of action: criminal conspiracy; racial discrimination; excessive force; Eighth Amendment violations; deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; retaliation; failure of supervisors to prevent deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; retaliatory transfer; inhumane conditions of confinement; unreasonable search and seizure; First and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding his classification status.

Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions, none of which apply to § 1983 actions. Swierkeiwicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). "Such a statement must simply give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but '[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the 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.

Although accepted as true, "[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). A plaintiff must set forth "the grounds of his entitlement to relief," which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. at 555-56 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To adequately state a claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must set forth the legal and factual basis for his claim.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by Plaintiff.

As noted, the court must screen the complaint prior to service upon defendants. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A(b)(1),(2). At the screening stage, the court is only determining whether Plaintiff states a colorable claim for relief. Should Plaintiff state a claim for relief, the court will direct service of process. A schedule for litigation will be set, including the opportunity to engage in discovery. Plaintiff does not need to prove his case at this stage of the litigation. The court is only ...

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.