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.

Denard Darnell Neal v. Hector Alfonso Rios

May 24, 2012

DENARD DARNELL NEAL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, JR., 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 (ECF No. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Denard Darnell Neal ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff has consented to the Magistrate Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 6.)

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 22, 2011. Plaintiff's original Complaint is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

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. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

It appears Plaintiff was previously housed at United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California ("USP Atwater"), where all of the incidents alleged in his Complaint occurred. Plaintiff is currently housed at Fresno County Jail.

Plaintiff brings this action for violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as various federal statutes. He names the following individuals as Defendants: 1) Hector Alfonso Rios, Jr., Warden at USP Atwater, 2) John Bell, Associate Warden at USP Atwater, 3) Mr. Schwartz, Associate Warden of Food Service and Health Service at USP Atwater, 4) Jesus Estrada, Special Investigation Agent at USP Atwater, 5) Mr. Keilman, Captain of Custody at Atwater, 6) John De Vere, Unit Manager at USP Atwater, 7) Kimberly Kodger, Chief Psychologist at USP Atwater, 8) Joel Zaragoza, Lieutenant of Special Investigation Services at USP Atwater, 9) Jesus Valcro, employee of Special Investigation Service, 10) Mr. Fisher, mail-room supervisor, 11) Robert C. Martinez, mail-room staff, 12) Mr. Luke, mail-room staff, 13) Mr. Caple, mail-room staff, 14) Mr. Bucio, mail-room staff, 15) Mr. V. Gonzales, lieutenant and alternative Disciplinary Hearing Officer, 16) Cassandra Harris, custody staff, 17) Stephew Putnam, lieutenant in the special housing unit and part of the Special Investigation Service, 18) Robert McFadden, Western Regional Director, 19) Robbie Johal, supervisor of the United States Post Office in Atwater, California, 20) Michael Peters, employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 21) Jesse Gonzalez, administrative remedy coordinator at USP Atwater.

Plaintiff asks for exemplary and punitive damages in various amounts, the removal of all information from all government files with his name, costs, and a jury trial.

The Complaint puts the Defendants into various groups based on their alleged wrongdoings. The Court will follow this approach. Plaintiff alleges as follows:

1. Defendants Rios, McFadden, Gonzalez, and Estrada stole Plaintiff's legal documents he was using to seek discharge of a debt. (Compl. at 5.) By doing so, these Defendants violated various federal statutes, subjected Plaintiff to "Domestic Genocide," "participated in the kidnaping of Plaintiff," and were part of a conspiracy. (Id.)

2. Defendants Estrada, Zaragoza, Valcro, Fisher, Martinez, Caple, Bucio, Rios, and Bell stole Plaintiff's certified mail which contained negotiable instruments worth over ten million dollars. (Compl. at 5.) These Defendants violated various federal statutes and intended to deprive Plaintiff of his property without due process. (Id.) These Defendants are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances.

(Id.)

3. Defendants Estrada, Zaragoza, Valcro, Fisher, Martinez, Luke, Caple, Bucio, Rios, and Bell stole Plaintiff's certified mail containing negotiable instruments worth over fifty thousand dollars. (Compl. at 6.) These defendants violated various federal statutes and are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

4. Defendants Estrada, Zaragoza, Valcro, Fisher, Martinez, Luke, Caple, Buco, Rios, and Bell stole certified mail containing legal documents with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of his property without due process of law. (Compl. at 7.) These Defendants are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

5. Defendants Estrada, Zaragoza, Valcro, Fisher, Martinez, Luke, Calpe, Bucio, Rios, and Bell stole Plaintiff's registered mail addressed to the Clerk of Court and held for ten days . (Compl. at 7.) They opened the mail and removed a criminal complaint. (Id.) They undertook these actions to deprive Plaintiff of his right to seek redress via grievances and to violate his right to due process and his right to be secure in his effects. (Id.) These Defendants are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

6. Defendants Fisher, Martinez, Estrada, Zaragoza, Valcro, Rios, and Peters stole certified mail that belonged to Plaintiff and contained documents worth forty-five million dollars. (Compl. at 8.) By doing so, these Defendants violated various federal statutes, and they are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

7. Defendants Wolff, Fisher, Bell, and Rios stole certified mail that belonged to Plaintiff. (Compl. at 8.) On October 6, 2010, Defendant Wolf had Plaintiff sign for his certified mail and then stole the documents. (Id. at 8-9.) By doing so, Defendant Wolf, in agreement with the other Defendants, violated Plaintiff's right to due process. (Id. at 9.) The documents were worth one hundred billion dollars. (Id.) These Defendants are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.) Defendant Johal worked with other Defendants to steal, obstruct the passage of, and molest Plaintiff's mail. (Id.) These Defendants are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

8. On September 20, 2010, Defendants Putnam and Estrada tried to convince Plaintiff to sign a document that declared he was part of the Black Gangsters Disciples and other gangs outlawed by Congress. (Compl. at 10.) By doing so, these Defendants violated various federal laws and they are part of an ongoing conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving any redress for his grievances. (Id.)

9. Defendants McFadden, Rios, Gonzalez, Bell, Schwartz, De Vere, Estrada, Keilman, and Kodger "abrogate Plaintiff right to effect an remedy pursuant to HJR-192" and subjecting him to "Domestic Genocide." (Compl. at 10.) These Defendants steal Plaintiff's mail from the courts and his family, creating conditions of slavery and domestic genocide. (Id.) Plaintiff has been declared a Prisoner of the Warden ("POW") and placed in special housing. (Id.) Plaintiff has been denied kosher meals required by his religion. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff is housed in cells that have air conditioning even in the winter. (Id.) Plaintiff is subject to improper lighting conditions, and he has suffered from a spider bite he could not treat because of insufficient lighting. (Id.) Plaintiff has been denied process in connection with his living conditions. (Id. at 12.) These Defendants are in a conspiracy against Plaintiff. (Id.)

III. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Plaintiff has not complied with this rule. Plaintiff's Complaint consists of a jumbled list of various federal statutes with a few mentions of the factual basis of his claims. Plaintiff throws in words like domestic genocide, slavery, and kidnaping. Plaintiff also mentions fantastical sums of money to which he was denied access. Plaintiff's few factual details are not clear and do not include fundamental information such as when the events occurred, who did what to cause the violation to occur, and what exactly happened during the incidents at issue. The Court cannot determine whether he states any cognizable claims. Plaintiff should review the standards set forth ...


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.