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.

William Gipson v. Correctional Officers Sgt. R. Schmist; et al

April 29, 2013

WILLIAM GIPSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS SGT. R. SCHMIST; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ralph R. Beistline United States District Judge

SCREENING ORDER

William Gipson, a California parolee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Gipson is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") in parole status. The acts complained of arose in part while Gipson was incarcerated at the California Correctional Institute, Tehachapi ("CCI"), and in part while incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran, ("SATF").*fn1

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.*fn2 This Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or that "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."*fn3 Likewise, a prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies as may be available,*fn4 irrespective of whether those administrative remedies provide for monetary relief.*fn5

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."*fn6 "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."*fn7 Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including the rule that complaints filed by pro se prisoners are to be liberally construed, affording the prisoner the benefit of any doubt, and dismissal should be granted only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can plead no facts in support of his claim that would entitle him or her to relief.*fn8

Section 1983 suits do not support vicarious liability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his or her rights.*fn9 This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.*fn10 "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'"*fn11 Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true.*fn12

"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."*fn13

II. GRAVAMEN OF COMPLAINT

Gipson's complaint appears to allege five claims: three arising out of Gipson's incarceration at CCI, Tehachapi, and two arising out of his incarceration at SATF, Corcoran.

CCI, Tehachapi (Schmist, Rodriquez, Jenkins) 1. On several dates between June 4, 2010 and July 20, 2010, Defendants Schmist, Rodriquez, and Jenkins refused to feed inmates, including Gipson, one or more meals.

2. As a result of Gipson's complaint about the practice of washing dinner trays in the toilet area against Defendants Schmist, Rodriquez, and Jenkins, Gipson was retaliated against in that he was removed from DNM ("Mobility Impaired Not Impacting Placement") status and moved from a lower bunk on the first level to an upper bunk on the second level.

3. Gipson requested that a gold necklace be sent home but it was kept by the Defendants.

SATF, Corcoran (Allison, De Ochoa and La Flore)

Gipson alleges he was improperly required to complete 168 hours of a substance abuse program ("SAP") instead of 90 in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") because he was an inmate considered DMN.

SATF, Corcoran (Onyeje and Peters)

Gipson contends that Defendants Onyeye and Peters refused to treat him for Hepatitis-C and when he appealed his release date was changed from June 7, 2011, to June 10, 2011, and it was not corrected ...


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.