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.

Charles A. Rogers v. W. Gardner

October 28, 2011

CHARLES A. ROGERS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
W. GARDNER, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 22)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Charles A. Rogers is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following the denial of Plaintiff's motion to certify this as a class action, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, on March 11, 2011. (ECF No. 20.) Currently before the Court is the first amended complaint, filed April 5, 2011. (ECF No. 22.)

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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (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 and is housed at the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, Corcoran ("CSATF"). Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Gardner, Turner, Clark, and Does 1-10, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment for untimely delivery of his mail.

Plaintiff's quarterly package was ordered and processed on May 16, 2008. The package was sent through the United States mail and Plaintiff did not receive it until June 23, 2008, allegedly in violation of California Code of Regulations and prison regulations. Plaintiff states that Defendant Gardner is "substantially responsible" for the delivery of inmate's quarterly packages. Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal that was denied by Defendant Turner stating there was no intentional delay in delivering Plaintiff's quarterly package. Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Clark informing him of the ongoing policy of issuing quarterly packages. A month later, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Clark complaining about the appeal process.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gardner intentionally delayed his incoming mail and Defendants Clark and Turner failed to train and supervise employees in how inmate packages are to be delivered to inmates. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages.

For the reasons set forth below Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. In the paragraphs that follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to his claims. Plaintiff should carefully ...


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.