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.

Sabrin Lester v. Isu

July 30, 2012

SABRIN LESTER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ISU, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1) ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Sabrina Lester, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on June 4, 2012. On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)).

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, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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 678-79, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Complaint Allegations

Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is currently incarcerated at the California Institute for Women, Corona. At the time of the incidents alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff was housed at Valley State Prison for Women. Plaintiff states that her civil rights have been violated by being falsely imprisoned and harassed by staff who got inmates to do their dirty work for them and took her release date. (Compl. 7, ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff alleges that false rule violations of battery on an inmate were filed against her based upon the lies of inmates who are jealous of her and set her up. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states that the broom was shaved with a razor by her cellmates and the inmates across the hall, and inmate Rocha paid the eleven inmates to lie about her to take her release date. (Id. at 7.) During the investigation, Plaintiff told Defendant McGraw that she believed that inmates were paid with drugs and tobacco to tell lies about her so she would lose her release date. Plaintiff sent four requests for interviews to ISU Services. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff requested that Correctional Officers Castellon, Villasenor, Chappel, and Moore take a polygraph test. "They" are covering up for their co-workers in this matter. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff brings this claim against Defendant Wells, VanHoff, McGraw, Castellon, and Villasenor based upon their response when she told them she was innocent of the allegations made by the eleven inmates. (Id. 4-5.) Plaintiff claims that she told Defendant Wells that the allegations against her were false and he expressed no interest in ordering a polygraph test or doing a thorough investigation. Plaintiff told Defendants Van Hoff, McGraw, and Castellon that she was set up and she did not batter anyone. Defendant Villasenor allowed an inmate to give false testimony about the injuries she received and eleven inmates to be involved in setting Plaintiff up. (Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff requests that her Security Housing Unit term be dropped and she be immediately released on parole; three inmates involved be placed under citizen's arrest, booked, and charged; a polygraph test be ordered for herself; and $100. per day from March 26, 2011. (Id. at 2, 6.)

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are unable to be cured by amendment and this action shall be dismissed, without leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

III. Discussion

A. Habeas ...


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.