United States District Court, E.D. California
GEORGE A. LAGUER, Plaintiff,
R. BROOMFIELD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 1]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff George A. Laguer is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on March 10, 2014. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on April 7, 2014. Local Rule 302.
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.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Broomfield, Munoz, Peterson, Nail, Cordova, Tomlin, DeOchoa, Middleton and Renteria were deliberately indifferent towards his conditions of confinement by subjecting him to a serious risk of harm for twelve days which resulted in serious injury to Plaintiff.
On January 19, 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to cell number 27 in 4A Facility Unit 2-Right because the plumping in his prior cell was in need of repair. The pipes in his cell were in such disrepair that it caused a blanket of contaminated water to cover his entire cell floor and the tier in front of his cell as a result of the drain being plugged.
When Plaintiff asked Defendants Peterson, Cordova, Tomlin, DeOchoa, Middleton and Renteria to submit an emergency work-order for the plumber to repair, the Defendants would respond there was no need because they had already been submitted work-orders. When Plaintiff asked these Defendants to move him to another cell due to the contamination water, they refused and told him there were no available cells.
Plaintiff sent inmate requests for interview forms to Defendants Broomfield, Munoz and Nail describing the contamination in his cell where he had to consume his meals, sleep and live and requested the cell conditions be repaired or he be moved to a ...