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.

Womack v. Cate

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 24, 2014

DANIEL W. WOMACK, Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND ECF NO. 18

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Daniel W. Womack ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on February 10, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint on January 24, 2014. (ECF No. 17.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on February 12, 2014. (ECF No. 18.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims.

II.

SCREENING

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 or malicious, " that "fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that "seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

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. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully" is not sufficient, and "facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability" falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678; Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.

III.

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

The events described in Plaintiff's complaint took place while he was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF-CSP"). Plaintiff names Matthew Cate (secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), M. Seminario (correctional officer), and R. Tolson (correctional officer) as defendants in this action (all defendants collectively referred to as "Defendants").

Plaintiff alleges that on April 22, 2011, Defendants Seminario and Tolson withheld certain mail from Plaintiff on the grounds that it was impermissible contraband within the meaning of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3006(c)(11). (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff's mail was withheld again by August 8, 2011 by Defendant Seminario for the same reason. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff contends that the mail "consisted of non-subscription catalogs which three (3) different companies had sent to plaintiff at plaintiff's request. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff admits that he is unaware of the exact contents of the withheld mail. (Compl. ¶ 7.) However, Plaintiff contends that the catalogs consisted of photographs of women ...


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.