The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 23)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff Raekubian A. Barrow, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) was screened and dismissed on October 25, 2011, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 23.)
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
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, malicious," or 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).
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The First Amended Complaint alleges that Correctional "Officer Martinez and others" violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Am. Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff identifies the "other" Defendants as the "Hearing Officers" who reviewed Plaintiff's inmate appeal "without interviewing witnesses, staff or inmates or video from ad seg unit." (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff alleges the following:
Plaintiff's hands were protruding from the food slot of his cell door. Defendant Martinez kicked the food slot door closed and Plaintiff had to quickly pull his hands in to avoid having them struck by the door. (Id. at 3.) Martinez noted Plaintiff's hands outside the food slot and, "regardless of intent knew or should have known his actions would cause Plaintiff to have his hands and arms harmed or that Plaintiff would, as he did, snatch his hands back through the slot . . . ." (Id.)
Plaintiff concludes that the aforementioned conduct violated his Eighth Amendment right to be ...