The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE; CLERK TO CLOSE THE CASE; DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Toromi Washington, 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.) His First Amended Complaint was dismissed on June 11, 2010 for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was dismissed on August 5, 2010 for failure to state a claim.*fn1 (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening.*fn2 (ECF No. 19.)
Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)
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).
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, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 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 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949--50.
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the La Palma Correctional
Center (LPCC) in Eloy, Arizona.*fn3 Plaintiff complains
of events that occurred at California State Prison Corcoran (CSP),
where plaintiff was housed prior to his transfer to LPCC.*fn4
Plaintiff complains that he was involuntarily transferred
from CSP to LPCC during the pendency of his habeas corpus proceeding
in U.S.D.C. Northern District of California, in violation of his First
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, access to the courts,
and equal protection. (Third Amended Complaint, p. 4-6, ECF No. 19.)
He claims his ability to assemble documents and information for
submission to the court was hampered. (Id.)
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint names as Defendants (1) Derrell G. Adams, Warden at CSP; (2) CC1 Rosenquist, Counselor; (3) Captain Quinones*fn5 , 3 Yard Officer; and (4) Mr. Rosenthal, 3 Yard Librarian. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff claims he told Defendant Rosenquist that Plaintiff was "engaged in litigating [his] conviction in the U.S.D.C. Northern District of California", and that Defendants "Quinones [and] Rosenquist ... violated [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure] 23(a) by not removing Plaintiff from the "transfer list". (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also complains that Defendant Rosenthal "selected what documents inmates could copy and/or submit to the ...