ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 7) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
MICHAEL J. SENG, District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Burton Day, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)
On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) is now before the Court for screening.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Accordingly, this Court screens all complaints filed by plaintiffs in propria persona to ensure that the action is not frivolous or malicious, states a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the complaint does not seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
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 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Id . Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The First Amended Complaint identifies Wanda Killian, Program Director, Central California Forensic Conditional Release Program (CONREP), and Chris Chapa, Anka Behavioral, Inc, as Defendants.
Plaintiff alleges the following:
Defendant Killian moved Plaintiff from independent living to a room and board situation in retaliation for Plaintiff having filed various grievances. The move served no legitimate purpose. Plaintiff was forced to live with low functioning roommates, his rent increased, and he was required to contribute money for a communal pantry. The move caused Plaintiff to lose valuable furniture.
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment ...