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.

Gift A.Z. Divine Allah v. State Attorney General

April 26, 2012

GIFT A.Z. DIVINE ALLAH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 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, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Gift A.Z. Divine Allah ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on November 15, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. He will be given leave to amend.

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 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.

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff, apparently a formerly incarcerated state prisoner, sues the following parties for First Amendment Violations: 1) K. Harris, Attorney General, 2) J. Collier, 3) P. Patterson, 4) B.J. Williams, 5) Region I Parole Agents, 6) Region I Fresno HQ Region Parole Appeals Coordinator, 7) CDCR Correspondence Unit, and 8) Region I Fresno Parole. Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights under the First Amendment.

Plaintiff's allegations are brief but difficult to comprehend. He alleges: Defendants Region I Fresno Parole and Fresno Staff Prison violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights when prison officials restricted inmates' access to the Courts. Defendants "hinder[ed] the due dates of every cognizable civil rights complaint." Plaintiff cites to a 2002 memorandum issued by the California Attorney General regarding delays in the CDCR's appeals process. The memorandum discusses how these delays prevented inmates from satisfying the exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff himself was not given the chance to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Plaintiff asks for an order to show cause and $100,000 in damages due to discrimination, emotional distress, and medical malpractice.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983 Claims

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. ยง 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for ...


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.