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 SCREENING ORDER
On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff Dwayne Meredith, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 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 California State Prison, Corcoran (Corcoran), officials as Defendants: (1) Lt. D. Overley; (2) Captain R.C. Garcia; (3) Lt. Gamboa; (4) K. Comaties, Associate Warden; and (5) John Doe Correctional Officers 1-10.
Plaintiff alleges the following:
On September 19, 2010, Plaintiff began a ninety day punitive segregated confinement at Corcoran known as Loss of Privileges (LOP) status. Plaintiff was not permitted to leave his cell for any reason until November 3, 2010. Thereafter he received a total of three hours outside his cell. Plaintiff was told that fog and staff shortage may have contributed to the limited out-of-cell time; however, neither weather conditions nor a staff shortage could have been severe enough to justify the forty-five day days Plaintiff was left in his cell. (Compl. at 5.) "Plaintiff frequently complained about his treatment and in particular about being locked down without yard or shower." (Id. at 6.) "Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's cries for help . . . ." (Id. at 7.) Another inmate in the same building, Paul Sanders, confirms that "Plaintiff often complained to security staff that he was not receiving his required shower and exercise time on a daily basis." (Id. at 59.) Plaintiff also submitted inmate appeals protesting his conditions to no avail. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff contends that the circumstances of his confinement, imposed by the Defendants, violated his Eighth Amendment rights and requirements set forth in Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two ...