The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff Edward B. Spencer ("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 August 20, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff failed to sign and file an original pleading, so the Court struck it and ordered Plaintiff to file a signed complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed a signed Complaint on September 6, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 9.) No other parties have appeared in this action. Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening
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 ("SATF"), where the events at issue in Plaintiff's Complaint occurred. Although Plaintiff does not cite to any law, it appears that Plaintiff wishes to allege a First Amendment retaliation claim against the following individuals: 1) G. R. Hudson, correctional captain at SATF, 2) D. Ibarra, correctional lieutenant at SATF, and 3) A. Holguin, inmate C-89607, formerly housed at SATF.
Plaintiff allegations are difficult to follow, and the Court relies on Plaintiff's exhibits to his Complaint to summarize them as follows:
Plaintiff was a member of the Inmate Advisory Council ("IAC") at SATF. (Compl. at Ex. B.) On June 28, 2011, Defendant Hudson issued a memorandum stating that any IAC members who filed CDCR 602s would be removed from the council. (Id. at Ex. A.) Plaintiff was ultimately removed from the IAC. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff was ostensibly removed because of an "Administrative Order," but Plaintiff was never provided with a copy of this order. (Id.) Plaintiff believes he was actually removed by Defendant Hudson because Plaintiff filed a 602. (Id.) Defendant Ibarra is also liable because he told Plaintiff he was not wanted on the IAC and his 602 would be denied. (Id.) Defendant Holguin, the IAC chairman, is liable because he knew about Defendants Hudson and Ibarra's actions and did not allow Plaintiff to defend himself. (Id.)
Plaintiff asks that he be compensated for Defendants' wrongdoings. (Compl. at 4.)
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Analysis
42 U.S.C. § 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). § 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating ...