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.

Robert Lewis Smith v. S. Pina

March 29, 2012

ROBERT LEWIS SMITH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
S. PINA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

(ECF No. 1)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Robert Lewis Smith ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on September 29, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in this action.

Plaintiff's Complaint is currently before the Court for screening. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint.

I. 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).

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff brings this action for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights arising out of Defendants' failure to protect him from harm thereby subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento. He was previously incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran ("CSP-COR"), where the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants in this action: 1) S. Pina, Correctional Officer Lieutenant at CSP-COR, and 2) H. Sumaya, Correctional Officer Sergeant at CSP-COR, 3) P. Munoz, Correctional Officer at CSP-COR, and 4) "Female" Estrada, Correctional Officer at CSP-COR. Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. Plaintiff asks for declaratory relief, nominal damages of $1, punitive damages of $50,000 from each Defendant, and a jury trial.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

Plaintiff's allegations revolve around Defendants' disregard of a medical chrono recommending Plaintiff not be placed on a top tier bunk or upstairs, and Plaintiff's resulting injuries due ...


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.