Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hollins v. Munks

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 30, 2013

MICHAEL HOLLINS, Plaintiff,
v.
GREG MUNKS, et. al., Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a detainee at Maguire Correctional Facility has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed an original complaint and then an amended complaint (Docket No. 8), that the court will review.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the.... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained the "plausible on its face" standard of Twombly: "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the grievance system at the jail where he is being held is ineffective.

However, there is no constitutional right to an administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); accord Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565 (1974) (accepting Nebraska system wherein no provision made for administrative review of disciplinary decisions).

In this complaint, plaintiff generally discusses his objections to the manner in which grievances are processed by jail staff. As there is no constitutional right to a grievance system, this fails to state a claim. As plaintiff has filed several other actions with specific claims, this case will be dismissed. To the extent this action discusses inadequate medical care, that claim will be addressed in another action that plaintiff filed the same day as this case. See No. C 13-5083 PJH (PR). Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel will also be denied as this case fails to state a claim and will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for the reasons set forth above.

2. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 9) is DENIED as this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.