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.

Vincente Solomon v. M. Carrasco

April 9, 2013

VINCENTE SOLOMON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. CARRASCO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



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

SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE ANY CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 1983 (Doc. 14) ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO THREE STRIKES PROVISION UNDER 28 .S.C. § 1915(G)

Second Screening Order Dismissing Action

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Vincente Solomon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 1, 2011. On August 28, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims under section 1983. After obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2012.

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.

Pro se litigants are 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.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran, brings this action against Chief Deputy Warden M. Carrasco; Inmate Appeals Branch Chief N. Grannis; Correctional Officers J. Heil, J. Cable, Hollingsworth, Blankenship, Syner, and Citch; Sergeants B. Mello and C. Turner; Lieutenant D. Crounse; and Correctional Counselors T. Gassaway and M. Dailo for violating his constitutional rights between March and December 2008 while he was at California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi.

1. Claim One

As in his original complaint, Plaintiff separates his allegations into four "claims," although there is overlap between the claims. Plaintiff arrived at CCI from High Desert State Prison on March 12, 2008,*fn1 and in claim one, he alleges that his personal property and medical appliances were given to Defendants Heil and Cable to inventory. On March 19, 2008, Plaintiff was told he would be getting his medical appliances, which consisted of orthopedic shoes, orthopedic arch supports, an egg crate mattress, medical lotions, and cotton blankets. When Plaintiff received his inventory receipt, however, he saw that his jewelry, family photos, CD player, and medical appliances were missing.

Plaintiff informed Defendants Mello and Turner that Defendants Heil and Cable had stolen his property, and he reported the issue to ...


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.