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.

Gachett v. Gipson

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 13, 2014

TROY JUNELL GACHETT, Plaintiff,
v.
GIPSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COUNSEL

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Troy Junell Gachett ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on January 30, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 25, 2013. On March 6, 2014, the Court screened the FAC and dismissed it with leave to amend.

On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). He names California State Prison, Corcoran ("CSP") Warden Gipson, CSP Chief Deputy Warden R. S. Lambert, and CCI Counselor Mascarenas as Defendants.[1]

A. 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 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 alleges that on July 18, 2012, Defendant Mascarenas recommended to Defendant Lambert that Plaintiff's television and personal property be confiscated and disposed of. Plaintiff alleges that this was done in retaliation for Plaintiff's refusal to cell with an incompatible cell mate. Plaintiff contends that the cellmate placed his life in extreme danger. In disposing of his television, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to adhere to the California Code of Regulations and other procedural guidelines.

Plaintiff alleges that this allowed the "further imposition of penalties" by Defendant Gipson. ECF No. 15, at 3.

For relief, he requests that his television be replaced. Plaintiff also requests punitive damages.

C. ANALYSIS[2]

1. Defendant Gipson

Plaintiff simply alleges that Defendant Gipson carried out "further impositions of penalties." ECF No. 15, at 3. This ...


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.