ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AS MOOT (ECF No. 15)
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT (ECF No. 13)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AN UNJUST COURT AND MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 10, 11, 14)
Plaintiff Matthew James Dury ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action was filed on November 5, 2012. On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to an unjust court and a motion for default. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a letter and a motion for default judgment. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on February 6, 2013. (ECF No. 15.)
Since Plaintiff's complaint is being dismissed with leave to amend, the motion to amend the complaint shall be denied as moot.
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 "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and is currently housed at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. Plaintiff alleges that he informed Defendant Ciufo that he was in need of stamps. In the first week of September, Plaintiff claims that he should have been provided five personal and five legal stamps, but did not receive them until September 10, 2012. Additionally, Plaintiff states that during the month of September he only received fifteen of the twenty five stamps he was entitled to. Plaintiff claims that the failure to ...