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.

Phillipi v. Patterson

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 25, 2014

BRUCE PHILLIPI
v.
PATTERSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILRUE TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROEDURE

STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Bruce Phillipi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on September 18, 2013.

I.

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 or malicious, " that "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or that "seeks 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)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv. , 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.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that he experienced retaliatory actions by staff in two prisons over a three year period of time, which continues to this day. Plaintiff contends the retaliation has been done for the following reasons: (1) because he is White; (2) because he is Jewish; (3) because he is a litigator/jailhouse lawyer who helps other; (4) because he wrote a declaration accusing staff of sexual harassment; (5) because he was found guilty of battery on prison staff; (6) because he had a criminal case issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation dismissed in court; (7) because he had a disciplinary issued by CDCR ordered removed by a court; (8) because he filed a civil rights action pursuant to section 1983 against prison staff; (9) because he was viewed by prison staff as being the "White" leader and instigator of inmate on staff violence; and (10) because he has filed numerous inmate appeals regarding section 1983 claims. (Compl. at 9.)

Plaintiff raises various allegations against several defendants at different prisons at different times, including allegations of retaliation, improper processing of inmate appeals, access to the court violations, deliberate indifference to his safety, interference with mail, improper administrative segregation placement, improper gang validation, and equal protection violations.

Because Plaintiff has not complied with Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will not analyze the cognizability of each individual claim, but the Court will provide Plaintiff with the applicable legal standards of review should he wish to file an amended complaint.

III.

...


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.