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.

Noel Rodriguez v. Garcia

December 28, 2011

NOEL RODRIGUEZ
PLAINTIFF,
v.
GARCIA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff Noel Rodriguez, 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's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

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 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is housed at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"), but complains of events that occurred at the Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, ("CSATF/SP"). The Complaint alleges that the following named Defendants, in their official and individual capacities, violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights: (1) Garcia, Classification Staff Representative ("CSR") at CSATF/SP, and (2) Hernandez, CSR at CSATF/SP. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants deprived him of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaining him in the Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) during the period August 5, 2009 until his transfer to KVSP on April 12, 2010.

On June 1, 2009, two prison gang members attempted to murder Plaintiff in the general population yard. (Complaint, p. 4, ECF No. 1.) The next day Plaintiff was placed in the ASU "as a victim not an aggressor." (Id.) On July 8, 2009, the Institution Classification Committee ("Committee") gave Plaintiff a 45-day ASU extension pending investigation into Plaintiff's security concerns. (Id.) The Committee received the completed investigation and, following an August 5, 2009, hearing decided to retain Plaintiff in the ASU pending CSR review and transfer to protective custody at a different facility. (Id. at 5.) On August 26, 2009, Defendant Garcia acting as CSR approved the Committee's August

5th action and gave Plaintiff a 90 day ASU extension (for an upcoming parole board hearing). (Id. at 5.) Defendant Garcia, on December 17, 2009 gave Plaintiff a further 75-day ASU extension (again for Parole Board hearing). (Id.) On March 25, 2010, Defendant Hernandez acting as CSR gave Plaintiff a final ASU extension (pending transfer to KVSP) running through July 23, 2010. (Id. at 6.) On April 12, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to KVSP protective custody. (Id.)

IV. ANALYSIS

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two ...


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.