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.

Hill v. Harris

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 29, 2014

TONY HILL, Plaintiff,
v.
KAMALA HARRIS, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION BECAUSE IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM ECF No. 1

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

On March 3, 2014, Tony Hill ("Plaintiff"), an individual proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

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 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 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 (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.'" Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). 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. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678.

II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

Plaintiff is currently housed at Wasco State Prison ("WSP"), where the events at issue in his Complaint occurred. Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants in their official and individual capacities: 1) Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California; 2) the Grand Jury of Kern County; and 3) Lisa Green, District Attorney of Kern County.

Plaintiff's allegations may be summarized as follows:

Plaintiff was falsely accused of battery on a peace officer and filed a grievance to correct the mistake. (Compl. at 4.) In response, on January 27, 2014, Correctional Officers Bienvenides and Reyes gave Plaintiff an apple which Plaintiff believed was laced with cyanide because he saw a "syringe imprint" on it. (Id.) These officers acted on orders of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Warden Katavich, Correctional Officer Hieto, and Correctional Officer Ayala. ( Id. at. 5.) Prison staff came to Plaintiff's cell and stared at him for thirty-minutes to see if he reacted to the cyanide. ( Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff had his food, especially his apples, tampered with from September 25, 2013, to February 2, 2014. (Compl. at 5-6.) Plaintiff's apples were tampered with because certain correctional officers were racist. ( Id. at 6.) He also was provided spoiled food. ( Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff informed Defendant Harris of the problems with his food, but she refused to intervene. (Compl. at 6.) He informed a Kern County Grand Jury of his problems but they also failed to help. ( Id. at 7.)

Plaintiff asks for monetary damages and an injunction directing that he be immediately ...


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.