The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 10)
Plaintiff Tury Dominguez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is the first amended complaint, filed December 17, 2010. (ECF No. 10.)
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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 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)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).
Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 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). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
II. Complaint Allegations
Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and is housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Darrel G. Adams, L. Billion, A. Gomez, Maurice Junious, M. Ruff, Everett W. Fisher, P. R. Jones, M. Hodges Wilkins, and Susan Hubbert alleging that he is being detained in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") on the basis of current active gang association in violation of his due process rights. (First Am. Compl. 2-3, ECF No. 10.)
On May 8, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before the Institutional Classification Committee ("ICC") for annual review and was sentenced to an indeterminate SHU term because he was found to be an active gang associate of the Mexican Mafia. The ICC relied upon the gang validation review prepared by Defendants Ruff, Jones, and Fischer. The source item used to validate Plaintiff was dated January 27, 2006. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff alleges that the source of the determination that Plaintiff was involved in gang activity has been effectively undermined because Plaintiff was identified as a stabbing victim in a confidential memorandum dated July 15, 2006. Additionally, according to a confidential memorandum dated January 22, 2008, Plaintiff is currently on a hit list for the Mexican Mafia.
Plaintiff alleges that since the subsequent information shows that he is in "bad standing" with the Mexican Mafia, the ICC abused its discretion by imposing an indeterminate sentence in the SHU on May 8, 2008. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff alleges that the ICC members, Defendants Junious, Jennings, Billiou, and Gomez violated the consent decree of Castillo v. Alameida, 3:94-cv-02847-MJJ (N.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2004), and Plaintiff's due process rights by retaining him in the SHU in the absence of some evidence of gang involvement. (Id. at 4-5.)