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.

Clarence Leon Dews v. Edmund G. Brown

March 12, 2013

CLARENCE LEON DEWS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (Doc. 22) THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations Following Second Screening

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 21, 2012. On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of right, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and on November 19, 2012, the Court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 7, 2012. For the reasons which follow, the Court finds that the second amended complaint fails to state any claims and it recommends dismissal of this action, with prejudice.

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

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, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible to survive screening, 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

III. Discussion

A. Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, brings this action against Warden Maurice Junious; Correctional Counselors F. Uriaz, D. Silva, A. Hurtado, B. Spriester, E. Moreno, and J. Faure; and Classification Services Representative D. Garcia for violating his rights while he was at North Kern State Prison, which is also located in Delano, California.

Plaintiff's allegations are vague and disjointed, but his myriad of legal claims appear to arise out of his transfer to a different institution despite his need for surgery. Plaintiff alleges that he is totally disabled, and his classification designation was changed from "high risk medical" to "totally disabled" on October 12, 2011. (Doc. 22, 2nd Amend. Comp., p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges very generally that he was deprived of medical and mental health care, and he was deprived of necessary shoulder surgery by virtue of his transfer out of North Kern State Prison.*fn1 (Id., p. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he had injuries to his right shoulder, right ...

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.