The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 15.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Michael Lynn Waters ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on October 8, 2010. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on August 29, 2011, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 12.) On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (Doc. 15.)
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 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). "[P]laintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . ," Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), and while a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California State Prison-Sacramento in Represa, California. The events at issue occurred at Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was housed there. Plaintiff names only one defendant, D. Fischer.
Plaintiff alleges that one of the Senior Psychologists at CSP placed a false report in Plaintiff's Central and Mental Health files, recommending Plaintiff for double-cell status, knowing of Plaintiff's mental health issues. Plaintiff alleges he suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ("OCD"), which causes him to act violently toward other inmates.
Plaintiff attaches forty-eight pages of exhibits to the First Amended Complaint and refers the Court to each of them as evidence that (1) Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies (Exhibit F); (2) the issue of Plaintiff's single-cell status was resolved at CSP on May 9, 2008 (Exhibit G); (3) in one of Plaintiff's prior cases, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to safety needs and that Plaintiff's prison appeal for single-cell status had been granted at the Second Level of Review (Exhibit H); (4) Plaintiff was allowed single-cell status in February and March 2006 (Exhibit I); (5) on April 16, 2009, Plaintiff was given double-cell status (Exhibit J); (6) in one of Plaintiff's prior cases, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for prison officials to remove false documents from his file, without prejudice to filing a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District (Exhibit K); (7) the appeal response dated March 7, 2011 stated that no documents from Pelican Bay State Prison dated May 9, 2008 could be located in Plaintiff's Central File (Exhibit L); (8) a copy of a false report was placed in Plaintiff's Central File by ISU Officer N. Scaife (Exhibit M); (9) Plaintiff's 602 appeal requesting investigation of a false report by ISU Lt. R. Whitford was granted (Exhibit N); and (10) Plaintiff had a mental health assessment for OCD on February 28, 2006 (Exhibit O).
Plaintiff requests as relief that "this mistake could be cleared up and released from PSU and not to be continued punished for nothing." Amended Complaint at 6.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal Constitution and laws." Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). "To the extent that the violation of a state law ...