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.

Theodore J. Saunders v. Cdcr

February 1, 2013

THEODORE J. SAUNDERS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CDCR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS / FIRST SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Theodore J. Saunders, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on January 11, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The 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 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Avenal State Prison ("ASP") and due for release May 17, 2013. He alleges Defendants have denied him the state substance abuse aftercare funding he earned by completing a prison substance abuse program; usurped his property right in this funding; and breached their substance abuse program contract with him.

Plaintiff entered and completed an ASP substance abuse program ("SAP") provided by third party provider, Centerpoint Inc. ("Centerpoint"). He did so based on representations by his CCI Counselor and the Director of Centerpoint that he "would be eligible for SAP aftercare funding through [the Substance Abuse Service Coordinating Agency ("SASCA")] upon [his] release." (Compl. at § IV.) The CCI Counselor later told him that since he was to be released on probation in lieu of parole he would not be eligible for state sponsored SASCA aftercare funding. (Id.)

He lists the following Defendants in the caption of his Complaint (1) CDCR -California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (2) Centerpoint Inc.; (3) SASCA- Substance Abuse Service Coordinating Agency. (Id. at 1.) He identifies the following as Defendants in the body of his Complaint (1) J. Lourenco, CCI Counselor at AVP; (2) Tino Rayos, Director of Centerpoint SAP at AVP; (3) Mathew Cate, Secretary of CDCR; (4) Clark Kelso, Receiver for CDCR Healthcare; (5) Warden, AVP. (Id. at § III.)

He requests that CDCR, Centerpoint and SASCA be held responsible for his earned aftercare service or be held financially liable for alternative aftercare service. (Id. at § V.)

Plaintiff's state court habeas petition seeking relief on the same grounds has been denied. (Id. at 4.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements ...


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.