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.

Aaron Wayne Gatti v. P.D. Brazelton

November 30, 2012

AARON WAYNE GATTI,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
P.D. BRAZELTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 13)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SECOND SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Aaron Wayne Gatti is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed September 6, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Decline Magistrate, ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff's Complaint was screened by the Court and dismissed for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 13) which 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. ANALYSIS

A. Summary of First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint does not clearly name Defendants liable thereon, includes no factual allegations or claims, and is uncertain as to relief sought.

The First Amended Complaint names in the caption Defendants who are not listed as Defendants in Section III "Defendants". (First Am. Compl. at 1, 2-3 § III.)

As statement of claim, the First Amended Complaint refers to an attached listing of Defendants purportedly extracted from an unspecified habeas corpus proceeding, and is devoid of facts of the case. (Id. at 3 § IV.)

For relief, the First Amended Complaint seeks unspecified monies purportedly sought in the unidentified habeas proceedings, and is devoid ...


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.