The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 15)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Francis W. Davis ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 19, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's original Complaint on December 22, 2011, and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2012. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) No other parties have appeared.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff again fails to state a cognizable claim and this action should be dismissed.
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 or malicious," 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, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 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.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. He was previously incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF"), the prison where the events at issue in the Amended Complaint occurred. Plaintiff brings this action for violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff also claims violations of various state laws.
Plaintiff alleges as follows against Defendant Lloyd, a Correctional Officer at CSATF.
On April 8, 2009, Plaintiff was informed that he was being transferred from one facility to another at CSATF. (Am. Compl. at 6.) He placed all of his property in a laundry cart, and during the transfer process he was placed in the custody of Defendant Lloyd.
(Id.) Defendant Lloyd searched the cart, and confiscated a J. Win radio, a Sony AM/FM clock radio, a coaxial cord, two statues Plaintiff had made, and Reebok tennis shoes. (Id.) Plaintiff tried to have the statues and shoes mailed to his sister, but Defendant Lloyd gave them to other inmates on April 22, 2009. (Id. at 7.) Defendant Lloyd also gave the confiscated radios to other inmates. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff filed a claim with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, even though (Plaintiff claims) it was unnecessary to do so since Defendant Lloyd was not being sued in his "official capacity". (Id. at 6, 64-71.)
Defendant Lloyd allowed inmates similarly situated to Plaintiff to have contraband items. (Compl. at 10.) These inmates were Defendant Lloyd's "inmate workers and/or his inmate informant." (Id.) Defendant Lloyd ...