The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY
Plaintiff Randy A. Hall ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No other parties have appeared in this action.
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 9, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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, 556 U.S. at 678 (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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is currently housed at California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), where the events at issue in his Complaint occurred. Plaintiff appears to be alleging claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against the following individuals: 1) Matthew Cate, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), 2) K. Holland, chief deputy warden of CCI, 3) K. Sampson, appeals coordinator at CCI, 4) R. Curliss, floor officer at CCI, 5) R. Duran, floor officer at CCI, 6) E. Rangel, floor officer at CCI, and 7) M. Frausto, floor officer at CCI.
Plaintiff's allegations are summarized as follows: Plaintiff was informed by another inmate that Defendant Curliss was revealing to other inmates that Plaintiff had been convicted of child molestation and telling white inmates to harm Plaintiff. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff filed grievances and talked to committee members to alert prison staff to Defendant Curliss' efforts to harm him. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff's grievances were not properly processed. (Id. at 6-8.) Defendants Holland and Sampson were among those who reviewed Plaintiff's grievances. (Id. at 8-10.)
At various points in 2011 and 2012, Defendant Duran refused to feed Plaintiff, insulted him, removed his medication, destroyed and removed items from Plaintiff's cell, and tried to stop Plaintiff from giving a medical slip to a nurse. (Compl. at 11, 13.) Defendant Duran also informed Plaintiff's neighbors about his conviction for child molestation. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff informed Defendant Holland via a grievance and also informed committee members of the infraction, but the committee chose not to help Plaintiff. (Id. at 12.)
According to another inmate, Defendants Rangel and Frausto told the inmate that Plaintiff was a child molester and if the inmate attacked Plaintiff, he would be rewarded. (Compl. at 14.) Plaintiff informed Defendant Holland about their threats. (Id. at 15.) Defendants Rangel and Frausto intimidated the inmate from testifying about their offer. (Id. at 16.)
Defendant Sampson interfered with the processing of several of Plaintiff's grievances in order to protect Defendant Curliss and prevent Plaintiff from accessing the Courts. (Compl. at 17.)
Defendants Holland and Cate supervised all subordinate personnel and were responsible for inmate safety. (Compl. at 18.) Plaintiff sent Defendant Holland a letter regarding the dangers he faced at CCI. (Id. at 19.)
Plaintiff asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to stop encouraging inmates to harm Plaintiff, to stop informing inmates of Plaintiff's commitment offense, and to ...