United States District Court, E.D. California
EDWARD B. SPENCER, Plaintiff,
E. BEELER, et al., Defendants.
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Edward B. Spencer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, is currently before the Court for screening.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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 , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service , 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Allegations
Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Correctional Sergeant E. Beeler; and (2) Does 1 through 10.
On July 16, 2012, Plaintiff asked Correctional Officer Frayo about cleaning supplies. Correctional Officer Frayo said he would check into it.
On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff wrote to the FAC E Program Sergeant and informed her that Correctional Officer Frayo stated that he would check into the cleaning supplies and that he was tired of having to purchase disinfectant. Sergeant Patterson responded on September 2, 2013, and stated that cleaning supplies are passed out on Thursdays when available.
On August 21, 2012, Inmate Robinson submitted a CDCR 22 requesting supplies for proper cleaning of his quarters. Correctional Officer Lopez stated that inmates had not been issued supplies because buildings had been shorted their supply orders from 24 bottles to 8 bottles a month for the last two orders. When orders were back to normal, then inmates would be afforded cleaning solution.
On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff's cell was randomly searched by Correctional Officer Lacero.
On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff's cell was searched under the supervision of Defendant Beeler, who interviewed Plaintiff regarding his August 14, 2012 appeal. Defendant Beeler directly supervised and ordered the search. On the same date, Plaintiff informed Correctional Officer E. Guillen that the receipt she sent him (after being called by Defendant Beeler and Officer Lopez and told to ...