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.

Robert E. Coleman v. Cdcr

February 26, 2013

ROBERT E. COLEMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CDCR, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED ECF No. 94

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert E. Coleman ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"). On December 5, 2012, the Court screened the complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims for relief against Defendants A. Diaz, M. Lopez, and P. Maldonado for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. ECF No. 93. On January 4, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 94. On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition. ECF No. 95. On January 29, 2013, Defendants filed their reply. ECF No. 96. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. Legal Standard

The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint." Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for 2 failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 3 Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the 4 light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. 5

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The federal system is one of notice pleading. 6

Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002). 7

Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim

8 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations 9 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 Atl. 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.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

III. Summary of Fifth Amended Complaint*fn1

Plaintiff was confined at California State Prison -- Corcoran ("CSP-Cor") in Corcoran, California, during the events alleged in this action. Plaintiff names as Defendants: A. Diaz, correctional lieutenant at CSP-Cor, and M. Lopez and P. Maldonado, correctional sergeants at CSPCor.

Plaintiff alleges the following. While incarcerated in Administrative Segregation 3A03 ("ad seg") at CSP-Cor in January of 2008, Defendants Diaz, M. Lopez, and Maldonado failed to provide Plaintiff with his personal or legal property, even after he showed them a February 19, 2008 court deadline. Fifth Am. Compl. ("5AC") ¶ 15. Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance regarding this. 5AC ¶ 15. After submitting this grievance, on February 27, 2008, Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report ("RVR") for refusing a direct order by Officer S. Vela regarding accepting a cell mate. 5AC ¶ 16. On March 3, 2008, Defendants Lopez and Diaz put Plaintiff on property restriction for thirty days. 5AC ¶ 17. Plaintiff had access only to one sheet, one shirt, one pair of boxers, and one pair of socks, with no access to his other personal property or hygiene items. 5AC ¶ 17.

On March 10, 2008, Plaintiff attended his RVR 115 hearing, and Defendant Diaz was the 2 senior hearing officer. 5AC ¶ 18. Plaintiff protested, contending that Defendant Diaz was the ad seg 3 lieutenant and had ordered his officers to confiscate Plaintiff's property. 5AC ¶ 18. ...


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.