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.

Alvarez v. Richardson

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 17, 2014

RODOLFO ALVAREZ, Plaintiff,
v.
G. RICHARDSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Rodolfo Alvarez ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 28, 2014. He filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") as of right on July 2, 2014.[1]

A. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible to survive screening, 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss , 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF") in Corcoran, California. Based on the documents attached to his FAC, it appears that the events at issue occurred at CSATF.

Plaintiff's FAC is comprised mainly of copies of his state habeas corpus action. In the caption, he lists Defendants as those named in his habeas corpus action.[2] The habeas action, denied by the Kings County Superior Court on May 12, 2014, was brought against Warden Sherman.

In the statement of claim, Plaintiff also refers the Court to the habeas petition, as well as a letter written to the Honorable Robert S. Burns.

According to the exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff was convicted of disrespecting staff after a June 15, 2013, disciplinary hearing. He identifies numerous issues with the hearing, including the denial of his right to call witnesses and the failure to disclose favorable inmate statements. Plaintiff also contends that he did not use the term he was accused of using.

Plaintiff was found guilty of "Disrespect to Staff" and assessed a thirty-day credit forfeiture and ninety-days loss of privileges.

He also states that J.D. Lozano, Chief Officer of Appeals, refused to process his inmate appeal, and that prison staff violated sections 3160 and 3163 of ...


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.