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 (30) DAYS
On June 14, 2010, Plaintiff Ryan A. Barba, a former 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. 5.) 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
The Complaint identifies the following California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi (Tehachapi) officials as defendants in this action: (1) Fernando Gonzales, Warden; (2) T. Miguel, Chairperson; (3) D.A. White, C&PR; (4) Wright, Correctional Counselor I; and (5)
O. White, Correctional Counselor II.
Plaintiff alleges the following: On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff arrived at Tehachapi and was immediately placed into
Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg), a status derived from a previous incarceration. In an initial interview Plaintiff explained that a mistake had been made and that he should be placed with the general population. (Compl. at 3.) The interviewer informed Plaintiff that an error, if made, would be resolved in approximately two weeks. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff attended a classification hearing on March 9, 2010 and was assured that mistakes in his placement would be resolved when prison officials received Plaintiff's central file. (Id. at 5.) On March 19, 2010, Plaintiff attended a mental health progress report ...