The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
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).
"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 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 the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
The events at issue in this action occurred at the U.S. Penitentiary
at Atwater, where Plaintiff was housed at the time.*fn1
Plaintiff names as the defendant in this action R.J. Ballash,
an employee of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at Atwater. Defendant
Ballash is the Disciplinary Hearing Officer at USP Atwater.
Plaintiff's claim stems from a disciplinary conviction he suffered at
Plaintiff alleges that he received a "misconduct report" for fighting. At his disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff indicated that he acted in self-defense. Specifically, Plaintiff was attacked by other inmates. Plaintiff alleges that a staff member "had already written a statement that I acted in self-defense." Plaintiff asked the hearing officer to review the video of the event, as it had taken place in view of a camera. Plaintiff's request was denied. Plaintiff was found guilty, and sentenced to 180 days loss of commissary and transfer to another correctional institution. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deliberately ignored evidence that clearly indicated that Plaintiff acted in self defense.
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). "A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person 'does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 9th Cir. 1978)). "[T]he 'requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actors knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.'" Id. (quoting Johnson at 743.44).
The sole defendant in this action is an official employed by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and the event at issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in a BOP facility. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that Defendant acted under color of state law. Any claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should therefore be dismissed.
Plaintiff may, however, proceed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens cause of action is a judicially created counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims against federal officers. Since federal officials do not ordinarily act under color of state law, constitutional violations by federal officials are generally beyond the reach of § 1983. Bivens established that "victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to ...