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.

Sheehan v. CDCR-Jamestown

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 5, 2013

RANDALL LEE SHEEHAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CDCR-JAMESTOWN, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1) TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Randall Lee Sheehan ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on November 1, 2012. The matter was transferred to this Court on December 19, 2012. Plaintiff's complaint is currently before the Court for screening.

I. Screening Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Serv. , 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. The events alleged in his complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at CDCR-Jamestown. Plaintiff names Correctional Lieutenant Cervantes and CDCR-Jamestown as defendants.

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

In this case, the SHO inappropriately entered a plea of "Guilty" based on the inmate (Randy Sheehan) not entering a plea. Furthermore in the Findings Section it is noted, "The above referenced report and Sheehan's plea and statement" the TLR notes that the appellant did not plea and did not make a statement. The TLR finds the aforementioned statement to be a due process violation because the "Guilty" plea was used as evidence against the appellant in the hearing to determine guilt. The crime of violating my due process right was committed by Lt. Cervantes.

(ECF No. 1, p. 3.)

Plaintiff seeks damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff's complaint is cursory and difficult to understand. However, Plaintiff's complaint references a "TLR, " which is attached to his complaint. The attached document is entitled "Third Level Appeal Decision" dated September 11, 2002. It includes findings at the "Third Level of Review (TLR)" related to an ...


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.