The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING ACTION AS FRIVOLOUS AND FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, (ECF No. 8) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
Plaintiff Gary Dale Barger, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on November 15, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed on December 19, 2012, for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file and amended complaint. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 28, 2012. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) The First Amended Complaint 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. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is essentially unintelligible. It does not allege an intelligible claim or even suggest the basis for any such claim.
Plaintiff states that his claim arises from: "[T]he CV in this court. It is the same old issue my mail consults U.S. Senate Judiciary Council, Barbara Boxer and Auntie Diane Feinstein, Patty Murry and Caroline Kennedy Consult U.S. Senate Military Justice Council, Jay Rockafeller, Carl. Levin, John Kerry Consult U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Check the latest congressional records Chief Obama clear this King Arthur I King of the U.K." (First. Am. Compl. at § IV.)
He names as Defendants "the Manson Family employed as Federal Bureau of al Qaeda; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert S. Muellar III and his administration; Daniel Webster and his administration; Robert Freeh . . . My lawyers will explain." (Id. at § III.) However, the caption of the First Amended Complaint lists as Defendants Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") Warden Gipson; CSP C.O. Henderson; CSP C.O. Magadellan; CSP C.O. Hicks; CSP C.O. Feilds; CSP C.O. Vioula; and CSP C.O. Garcia.
He seeks "00 999 zillion #9's * treason" as relief in this action. (Id. at § V.)
A. Pleading Requirements Generally
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. ...