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.

Joshua Todd Woolridge v. A. Thompson

April 1, 2013

JOSHUA TODD WOOLRIDGE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. THOMPSON, ET. AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 2).

Plaintiff, Joshua Todd Woolridge Thompson ("Plaintiff"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff's action was removed from Kern County Superior Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), as the Court has original jurisdiction over matters arising from 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge on January 19, 2012. (Doc. 5). Pending before the Court is the Court's review of Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b), which he brings against Defendants A. Thompson, S.D. Hass, T. Perez, and the California Department of Corrections ("CDCR"). (Doc. 2 at 5).

Having read and considered the Complaint, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend.

I.SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Because Plaintiff seeks redress from governmental employees in a civil action, the Court is 3 required to screen his complaint in order to identify cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

The Court shall "dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is 5 frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary 6 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 7 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

II.PLEADING STANDARDS

"Pro se documents are to be liberally construed" and "'must be held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). "[They] can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" (Id.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). While a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In analyzing a pleading, the Court sets conclusory factual allegations aside, accept all nonconclusory factual allegations as true, and determines whether those non-conclusory factual allegations accepted as true state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-52 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." (Id. at 1949) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining plausibility, the Court is permitted "to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." (Id. at 1950).

III.PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff began his incarceration at the Kern Valley State Prisons ("KVSP") on May 4, 2009.

(Doc. 2 at 8). Plaintiff alleges Defendants Thompson and Perez, both correctional officers, "singled 4 out" Plaintiff due to his "skin color"upon his arrival at KVSP. Id. Plaintiff avers he brought a pair of "Koss CL's" headphones with him to KSVP, which were physically examined by Sergeant Manta. Id. 6 at 9. On August 12, 2009, Defendant Thompson confiscated and possibly destroyed Plaintiff's "Koss" 7 headphones. Id. at 8.

On January 24, 2010, "Crips" gang members stole Plaintiff's personal property canteen. Id. at 10.

Plaintiff informed Defendants Perez, Hass*fn1 , and Thompson of the January 24 theft. Id. Defendants replied that an investigation would ensue. Id. However, on February 3, 2010, a "Crips" gang member again stole Plaintiff's entire quarterly package, which included a newly purchased "AM/FM Sony" cassette player and "earbuds." Id. at 10- 11. ...


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.