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.

Carl Ethridge v. Childs

December 28, 2011

CARL ETHRIDGE
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHILDS, 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 WITHINTHIRTY DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff Carl Ethridge, 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 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 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) Hernandez, Associate Warden at CSATF/SP, and (2) Childs, Correctional Lieutenant at CSATF/SP.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for physical and emotional injuries and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Hernandez and Childs each deprived him of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from deliberate indifference to the infliction of such punishment. Plaintiff was subjected to a total 180 days of disciplinary detention for two separate violations of prison rules. (Compl., pp. 4, 7, ECF No. 1.) The detention denied Plaintiff outside exercise and subjected Plaintiff to "harsh living conditions." (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff complains that Defendants each acted pursuant to an "institutional operational procedure [and policy]... that was in direct conflict with ... California Code of Regulations ... [T]itle 15 [Section 3322]." (Id.) Plaintiff states that Section 3322 allows for more than 10 days of disciplinary detention only where the inmate "is determined to be an extreme danger [and where approved by the head of the institution and the director of corrections]." (Id.) Plaintiff states he was "not found to be an extreme danger or any danger at all to other inmates or staff,". (Id.)

Defendant Hernandez was responsible for reviewing and approving disciplinary reports. (Id. at 5.) He reviewed and approved the total 180 days disciplinary detention. Plaintiff claims Defendant Hernandez did so knowing that the total 180 day disciplinary detention was contrary to Section 3322 and unconstitutional. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Childs was responsible for conducting inmate disciplinary hearings and for administering punishment. (Id.) Defendant Childs administered and implemented this ...


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.