The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF NO. 1)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FIRST SCREENING ORDER
Plaintiff Anthony Ray Evans is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.)
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
Plaintiff re-iterates certain allegations previously disposed of on
the merits before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United Stated
Magistrate Judge, in Anthony Ray Evans
v. Gonzales, E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:10-cv-01680-DLB PC,*fn1
relating to events in 2010 involving correctional staff at the California Correctional
Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California. (Complaint at 2, 13.) He
alleges that corrections staff Defendants Sampson, Sanders, Burrows,
Mello, Phillips and Steadman required that he take a cell-mate
notwithstanding his history of violence against cell-mates. (Id.) He
then attacked his cell-mate, was pepper-sprayed, insufficiently
decontaminated, given a rules violation, and his related prison
grievance was improperly handled and ultimately denied, violating his
rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 4-13.)
He also alleges that Judge Beck engaged in judicial misconduct in the Gonzales action. (Id. at 13.)
He names as Defendants (1) Judge Beck, (2) Stainer, Warden, (3) Mello, Sgt., (4) Phillips, Counselor, (5) Steadman, Assoc. Warden, (6) Burrows, Sgt., (7) Sander, Lt., and (8) Sampson, Appeals Coordinator.*fn2 (Id. at 2.)
He seeks monetary compensation. ...