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.

Wilson v. Silva

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 3, 2014

THABITI SALIM WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
G. SILVA, et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION THIRY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Thabiti Salim Wilson ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on November 14, 2011.

On January 31, 2013, the Court screened the complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 2, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff's FAC and again dismissed it with leave to amend. The Court afforded Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint.

After receiving numerous extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on June 9, 2014. He names Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP") Correctional Officers G. Silva, John Doe and Jane Doe as Defendants.

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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.'" Id . (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead , 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles , 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton , 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones , 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California. The events occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at KVSP.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 9, 2008, he was housed in KVSP D Facility in Building 3. Defendant Silva was the Third Watch Control Officer for Building 3. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe were the Third Watch Floor Staff in Building 3.

During work change on the morning of January 9, 2008, a group of black inmates attacked a group of white inmates. The white inmates were beaten and stabbed. As a result, the black and white inmates in Facility D were placed on lockdown. All Second Watch officers were aware of the incident, which occurred during Second Watch. Lockdown procedures were implemented and there were no further incidents on Second Watch.

When the Third Watch Staff arrived, they were made aware of the situation and the fact that ...


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.