The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
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 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).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[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). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The complaint names three defendants, the State of California, Edmund G. Brown and Warden Duffy. It also asserts three claims. In Claim I, plaintiff asserts that his primary care physician ordered plaintiff a typewriter as a means of communication with the court and to prevent further injury as a result of his carpal tunnel syndrome. However, he asserts that the State of California refused to provide him with a typewriter. In Claim II, plaintiff asserts as follows:
Defendant and Governor Edmund G. Brown was repeatedly advised that his appointee - Secretary of Corrections Matthew Cates - was and is directing correctional personnel to obstruct plaintiff's access to the courts.
Defendant and Governor Edmund G. Brown was advised that his cabinet appointee and Secretary of Corrections - Matthew Cates -was overseeing a monumental conspiracy to obstruct justice, wherein crimes committed by correctional personnel were concealed and went without investigation.
Defendant and Governor Edmund G. Brown had/has the authority to stop his subordinate appointee, and cabinet secretary - Matthew Cates - yet knowingly and recklessly allowed Secretary Cates et al. to perpetrate a "campaign of criminal predation" upon plaintiff, so as to avoid the sociopolitical ramifications certain to follow public notice of the CDCR corruption referenced immediately hereinabove.
Defendant and Governor Edmund G. Brown, knowingly and recklessly provided tacit approval to his appointee and subordinate Secretary - Matthew Cates - even as plaintiff reported attempted homicides orchestrated by correctional officials under the direction of Secretary Cates.
In Claim III, plaintiff asserts as follows:
Warden Duffy . . . has knowingly, deliberately, and recklessly permitted his subordinate personnel to engage in criminal acts and other malfeasance with the intention of inflicting duress upon plaintiff, so as to prevent plaintiffs:
A. Continued communication with the courts, press, and other law ...