The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE NOVEMBER 28, 2011
Plaintiff Geoffrey Bradley ("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 has consented to the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 13, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
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, ___ U.S. ___, ___; 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). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.
Plaintiff was housed at California Correctional Institution ("CCI") at Tehachapi, California, during the time of the events alleged in his Complaint. Plaintiff is currently housed at Chino State Prison. Plaintiff appears to have brought this action for violation of his First Amendment right to file a grievance and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Plaintiff has named only Danny Olmos, a correctional officer at CCI, as a Defendant in this action.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
On January 1, 2010, Defendant Olmos and other officers were angry at Plaintiff because he had advised the sergeant that the officers were not doing their jobs. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff was concerned because other inmates, including his cell-mate, were threatening to harm him when they came out of lock down. (Id.)
Defendant Olmos escorted Plaintiff to the shower and handcuffed him for trransfer to and from the shower. (Id.) In Plaintiff's cell, Defendant Olmos called Plaintiff a number of names and bent Plaintiff's left shoulder. (Id.) When Plaintiff complained about the pain, Defendant Olmos threatened to break Plaintiff's bones. (Id.) Defendant Olmos also sprayed Plaintiff, who has glaucoma, with pepper spray causing great pain especially in his eyes. Plaintiff's eyes and arms still hurt; he has to take ibuprofen everyday. (Id.) Defendant Olmos falsely accused Plaintiff of having assaulted him; the assault charge was dropped to a "division F" charge since Plaintiff had been handcuffed at the time of the incident. (Id.)
Plaintiff wants the Court to order CCI to pay for his injuries. (Id.) The Captain and Warden of CCI have conducted an ...