The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 (Doc. 16)
THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Second Amended Complaint
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil action for violation of his federal constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 26, 2011, Defendants Vasquez and Jones removed the action, which was proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, from Kings County Superior Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
On March 12, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff's amended complaint and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims under section 1983. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2012.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
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, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran, brings this suit against prison mailroom employees L. Vasquez, S. Jones, and Does 1-25 for violating his rights under the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff alleges that between February 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008, Defendants Vasquez, Jones, and Does 1-25 intentionally withheld, lost, and/or destroyed ten issues of Plaintiff's Ebony and Vibe magazines and thirty-two issues of Plaintiff's Jet magazine.
Plaintiff also alleges that on May 3, 2008, his mother mailed him paper, stamps, and envelopes, and on August 27, 2008, his sister-in-law mailed him a book of stamps. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Vasquez, Jones, and Does ...