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.

Rosas v. Davey

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 3, 2014

FEDERICO ROSAS, Plaintiff,
v.
D. DAVEY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Federico Rosas ("Plaintiff") is a California state prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 24, 2014. He names twenty-five Defendants who are employed at two different institutions.[1]

A. SCREENING 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. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") at the California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California. The events at issue occurred at both CCI and Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP").

Although Plaintiff names twenty-five Defendants, his factual allegations are sparse. He alleges that on July 6, 2013, while incarcerated at KVSP, he and his cellmate were involved in a physical fight. A weapon was found in the cell, located between Plaintiff's paperwork. However, the "write-up" falsely stated that the weapon was found in plain view on a top storage shelf.

Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendant Waddle that numerous inmates knew about his PC 288 charge and she told him that she didn't care and that Plaintiff was going back to that yard. Plaintiff told Defendant Waddle that he had fought with his cellmate, but instead of talking to Plaintiff, Defendant Waddle went to talk to the cell mate. Plaintiff was placed in ASU after his cell mate told Defendant Waddle that he had a weapon between his paperwork. Defendant Waddle failed to sign her name on the lock-up order and someone else forged her signature.

Defendant Becera asked Plaintiff if he was on a hunger strike and Plaintiff said no. A few days later, Plaintiff again refused to eat after Defendant Becera served food. Defendant Becera seemed to get offended and shouted an obscenity to Plaintiff. Plaintiff kept his mouth shut, but he felt irritated and like he wanted to "go[] physical" on Defendant Becera.

Defendant Claire also skipped Plaintiff's cell twice when providing meals. When Plaintiff asked where his food was, Defendant Claire "gave Plaintiff a shake to his elbows in a gesture as I don't care."

Defendant Blake slammed his fists at Plaintiff's window and yelled in a loud voice. His face was menacing and made Plaintiff feel uncomfortable and "into going physical" on Defendant Blake. Defendant Blake was supposed to pack Plaintiff's property for transfer on November 24, 2013, from KVSP to CCI. Plaintiff refused to pack his property because his SHU assessment was inappropriate, his name was incorrect on the transfer roster, his request to speak to the Sergeant was denied and when the officer came with a box, the box was already full.

The remainder of Plaintiff's complaint is a list of Defendants and a few sentences about the alleged violation. The Court will summarize his allegations.

Defendant Davey (KVSP Warden)-made Plaintiff feel unsafe during committee, failed to inspect Plaintiff's C-file for enemies and stated that he was going to give Plaintiff a cell mate.

Defendants Goss, Sandoval, Gricewich and Swaim (KVSP)-also present at committee, failed to inspect "128-G's" information, and failed to report misconduct by other Defendants.

Defendant Hancock (KVSP)-present at committee, read 128-Gs and failed to correct them, failed to correct misconduct by staff and failed to prevent Plaintiff's transfer.

Defendant Waddle (KVSP Lieutenant)-failed to intervene to prevent harm, failed to inspect 115 write-ups for information, failed to inspect lock-up order for her signature.

Defendant Nuckles (KVSP)-did not meet with Plaintiff prior to his committee hearing and was not present as stated at the bottom of the 128-G.

Defendant Claire (KVSP)-did not feed Plaintiff "breakfast and lunch in a bag once, and lunch in a bag two times, " and did not pick up Plaintiff's mail on numerous occasions.

Defendant Jackson (KVSP)-did not pick up Plaintiff's mail on numerous occasions when it was in plain view and did not deliver a CDCR 22 form.

Defendant Becera (KVSP)-verbally harassed Plaintiff to try and instigate a physical fight or verbal response, after Plaintiff refused to eat on two occasions.

Defendant Blake (KVSP)-once at breakfast time, slammed his fists into Plaintiff's window to scare him into not eating.

Defendant Monsenares (KVSP)-gave Plaintiff his property four and a half months late, did not give Plaintiff his inventory sheet, told Plaintiff to stop asking ...


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.