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.

Alfred v. Vazquez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 29, 2013

CHRISTOPHER ALFRED, Plaintiff,
v.
P.L. VAZQUEZ, Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (ECF NO. 21) CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Christopher Alfred, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 13, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.)

Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1), First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), and Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) were screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, on December 3, 2012, March 29, 2013, and May 30, 2013, respectively, each for failure to state cognizable claims. (ECF Nos. 9, 15, and 17.) Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) is now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious, " or 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).

Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n , 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff names Warden P.L. Vazquez, North Kern State Prison (NKSP), as the sole Defendant and alleges the following:

On July 13, Plaintiff arrived at NKSP and was initially screened by a sergeant who asked a series of questions. The sergeant determined that Plaintiff and four other African American inmates were to be sent to Building 5 where racial and group differences were "boiling". There was no reason to place Plaintiff in such a dangerous environment. The placement was discriminatory based on Plaintiff's race. (Compl. at 3.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. ...


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.