Brandon T. Collins
John Salazar, et al.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
OSWALD PARADA, Magistrate Judge.
On May 10, 2013, in the Eastern District of California, Brandon T. Collins ("Plaintiff") lodged for filing a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an in forma pauperis application in order to proceed without payment of the full filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On May 14, 2013, an order was issued transferring the Complaint and in forma pauperis application to this District. (ECF No. 3-5.)
In accordance with the mandate of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), the Court must examine a complaint for the purpose of determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, regardless of whether a prisoner prepays filing fees or requests to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (c); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Review under § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard applied in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed.
A. Summary of Plaintiff's Allegations.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) John F. Salazar, Warden of Chuckawalla State Prison ("CSP"); (2) Correctional Officer ("CO") J. Marquez; (3) CO M. Gomez; (4) CO L. Adams; and (5) Lieutenant J. Herrera. Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. Plaintiff alleges violations of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution based on the alleged denial of his ability to call witnesses and present exculpatory evidence during a rules violation hearing. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. (Compl. at 1, 4-5.)
Plaintiff alleges that on May 21, 2009, while he was housed at CSP, he was in his cell with inmates Walker and Brown talking and looking at photographs. Defendant Adams was conducting count at the time. After count was finished, Defendant Adams called Plaintiff to the officer's podium, informed Plaintiff that he had exposed his crotch area to her, and was going to issue Plaintiff a rules violation report. The following day, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation for indecent exposure. On May 26, 2009, Defendant Gomez served Plaintiff with a serious rules violation report for indecent exposure. Defendant Gomez asked Plaintiff if he wanted her to be his investigative employee. Plaintiff responded that he did. Plaintiff then indicated that he wanted inmates Walker and Brown as witnesses. (Id. at 6, 7.)
On August 6, 2009, Defendant Marquez stated that he had been assigned to be Plaintiff's new investigative employee. Defendant Marquez indicated that he would be obtaining statements from inmates Walker and Brown. (Id. at 7.)
On August 10, 2009, Plaintiff appeared before Defendant Herrera for a disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff was informed that inmates Walker and Brown had been paroled and were not available for the hearing. Defendant Herrera denied Plaintiff's request to have inmates Walker and Brown present, determining that there was sufficient evidence based on the statement by Defendant Adams to support a finding that Plaintiff was guilty of the indecent exposure charge. Thus, Defendant ...