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.

Hall v. Guila

United States District Court, S.D. California

August 20, 2014

LAVELL HALL, CDCR #H-05584, Plaintiff,
v.
Y.A. GUILA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 14, 2011, Lavell Hall, a state inmate currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County located in Lancaster, California, submitted a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this matter but rather Plaintiff has paid the entire $350 civil filing fee.

On March 9, 2012, this Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). [Doc. No. 5.] Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. [Doc. No. 5 at 5-6.] On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint." [Doc. No. 6.] However, before the Court could issue a ruling on Plaintiff's Motion, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). [Doc. No. 7.]

On May 24, 2012, the Court, once again, dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). [Doc. No. 9.] Plaintiff was again granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. [ Id. at 5.] After receiving extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). [Doc. No. 15.] This Court dismissed all claims against Defendant Guila and transferred the matter to the Eastern District of California in light of the fact all remaining claims were unrelated to the claims that arose in this District. [Doc. No. 19].

After the matter was transferred to the Eastern District of California, Plaintiff was permitted to file a Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. [Doc. Nos. 26, 30.] On August 5, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an "Order Dismissing Action without Prejudice" and transferred the matter back to this District. [Doc. No. 32.]

II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)

As the Court informed Plaintiff in its previous Orders, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the Court to review complaints filed by anyone "incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program, " "as soon as practicable after docketing" and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The Court must sua sponte dismiss prisoner complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

A. Constitutional Claims

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

B. Waiver of Claims against Defendants

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff no longer names Defendants Clark, Mecias, Kirby, Tkieby, Walker, Rouch, McCabe, Wauem, Wager Vo, Quang, Thornhill, Ko or Fraze in his Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC"). As this Court informed Plaintiff in its previous Orders, "[d]efendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in [amended pleadings] will be deemed to have been waived." See May 24, 2012 Order at 5, Doc. No. 9, citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th ...


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.