United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 23, 2013, is currently before the Court for screening.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. The events alleged in the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) R. Diaz, Warden, Corcoran State Prison; (2) CDW T. Perez; (3) Capt. R. Broomfield; (4) Lt. B. J. Weaver; (5) R. McMurrey; (6) John Doe; and (7) Jane Doe. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
DISCOVERY AND DISTRICT COURT REVIEW OF IT'S [sic] OWN RECORDS IN LESCALLETT V. MCDONALD, ETAL, CIVIL NO. 2-11-CV-00061-KJM-CKD, WILL REVEAL PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION CLAIM AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORR. INVOLVING A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION. IN THE INSTANT ACTION, PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT AS DIRECT RETALIATION OF HIS FIRST LAWSUIT, THE ABOVE DEFENDANTS HAVE CONSPIRED AND ACTED IN CONCERT AND PARTICIPATION WITH EACH OTHER TO AGAIN VIOLATE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS BY INCREASING PLAINTIFF'S SECURITY LEVEL AND TRANSPORTING PLAINTIFF UNLAWFULLY TO ANOTHER PRISON WHICH PLACES PLAINTIFF "IN IMMENENT [sic] DANGER OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM", THROUGH DIRECT USE OF FALSIFIED AND FABRICATED DUE PROCESS REPORTS. [¶] (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS)
(ECF No. 1, p. 3.) There are no exhibits attached to Plaintiff's complaint. If Plaintiff intends to incorporate exhibits into his complaint, they should be included with any amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, along with injunctive relief, including transfer to Mule Creek State Prison and clearance of his discipline record.
III. Deficiencies of Complaint
Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable claim against any of the defendants. As discussed below, Plaintiff will be given leave to cure these deficiencies. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to his claims. ...