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.

Undrey Turner v. Duran

November 29, 2012

UNDREY TURNER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DURAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE ANY CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 1983 (ECF No. 16) FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

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. (ECF No. 1.) No other parties have appeared in the action. The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff has since filed a First Amended Complaint. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim and recommends that Plaintiff's action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

I. 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 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 previously was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran ("CSP-Corcoran"), where the events at issue in his First Amended Complaint occurred. Plaintiff alleges that the following individuals violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him and California tort laws by acting with negligence: 1) Duran, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran, 2) Smith, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran, and 3) Maganya, correctional officer at CSP-Corcoran. All of the named Defendants work in the Secure Housing Unit 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 without strip-searching the new cell-mate prior to the transfer. (Am. Compl. at 3.) Defendants Duran and Smith knew that California Code of Regulations and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Operational Procedures directed that they properly search Secure Housing Unit inmates before transferring them, but they failed to strip search Plaintiff's new cell-mate. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff's new cell-mate stabbed Plaintiff after the transfer. (Id. at 3.) 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.

III. ANALYSIS

A. 42 U.S.C. ...


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.