The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Undrey Turner ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on June 4, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in the action. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend.
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 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is currently housed at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. Plaintiff was previously housed at California State Prison-Corcoran ("CSP-Corcoran"), where the events at issue in his Complaint occurred. Plaintiff alleges that the following individuals violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him: 1) Duran, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran, 2) Smith, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran, and 3) Maganya, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
On September 13, 2011, Defendants Duran and Smith transferred a new cell-mate into Plaintiff's cell in the Secure Housing Unit. (Compl. at 3 and 5.) Defendants Duran and Smith knew that pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3345, they were to properly search Secure Housing Unit inmates before transferring them, but they failed to strip search Plaintiff's new cell-mate. (Id. at 4.) The new cell-mate, was armed with a homemade weapon at the time of transfer and he stabbed Plaintiff, while Plaintiff was handcuffed, when introduced into Plaintiff's cell. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Maganya aided Defendants Duran and Smith in the transfer process by opening various cell doors from a control booth. (Id.)
Plaintiff asks for compensatory damages.