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.

K'Napp v. Arlitz

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 14, 2014

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP, Plaintiff,
v.
ARLITZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF EITHER TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OR TO NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS IDENTIFIED HEREIN

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K'Napp is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed June 25, 2014.

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 "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.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

On August 23, 2005, Plaintiff was transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), by Defendant Hickman. Plaintiff remained at PVSP for less than two months, and the events at issue in the complaint took place during that time frame at PVSP.

Upon Plaintiff's arrival at PVSP on August 23, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Tilton, Yates, and Arlitz, by and through their agents and employees Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Negrete, Parks, and Shannon had Plaintiff's personal property seized, stolen, discarded or otherwise taken away without any compensation.

Beginning on August 23, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Tilton, Yates, Doe, and Arlitz by and through their agents and employees Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Nelson, Parks, Prince, and Shannon completely deprived and denied Plaintiff of his doctor-prescribed psychiatric medication for more than 12 consecutive days while locked inside a windowless cell for 24 hours a day.

Beginning on or around September 4, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Tilton, Yates, Doe, and Arlitz by and through their agents and employees Defendants Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy, Parks, and Shannon caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to suffer by having his permanent prison medical records fraudulently altered to suggest that he did not suffer the serious medical conditions that numbers prison doctors previously determined.

Beginning on or around September 8, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Tilton, Yates, and Arlitz personally and by and through their agents and employees Defendants Fisher, Grannis, Parks, Prince, and Shannon caused and/or allowed Plaintiff to suffer by being verbally, mentally, sexually, and physically attacked by Defendant Prince.

Beginning on or around September 27, 2005, Defendants Hickman, Woodford, Tilton, Yates, Doe, and Arlitz, personally and by and through their agents and employees Defendants Grannis, Nelson, Parks, Prince, Puig, and Shannon transferred Plaintiff more than 250 miles away from ...


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.