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.

Malcolm J. Moore v. Unknown

June 27, 2012

MALCOLM J. MOORE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNKNOWN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 8) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff Malcom J. Moore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

II. 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).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint names the following individuals as Defendants: (1) K. Allison, Warden, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF); (2) S. Snell, Vocational Instructor; (3) F.A. Rodriguez, Lieutenant; (4) M. Vervoot, Correctional Officer; (5) C. Seaman, Vice Principal; (6) P. Medvec, Principal; (7) Stohl, Correctional Sergeant; (8) John Does 1-200; and (9) Jane Does 1-200.

Plaintiff alleges the following:

The Defendants removed Plaintiff from a program created by state law that offers prisoners the opportunity to earn "milestone credits" and learn marketable vocational skills. Defendants Snell, Rodriguez, Vervoot, Seaman, Medvec, and Stohl removed Plaintiff from the vocational program and related technology class. (Id. at 3.) Being deprived access to the program altered the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement so dramatically that it amounted to a deprivation of a liberty interest. No due process preceded the deprivation. (Id. at 4.) Some courts have recognized that the restriction on an inmates ability to earn "milestone credits" is a deprivation of liberty. Being denied access to the program also amounts to deliberate indifference. Plaintiff attempted to resolve the deprivation of his rights through the inmate appeal system; however, Plaintiff's appeals were either destroyed or denied in violation of Plaintiff's due process rights. (Id.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United ...


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.