United States District Court, E.D. California
Zane Hubbard, Plaintiff, Pro se, CORCORAN, CA.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No. 14]
Stanley A. Boone, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Zane Hubbard is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed October 28, 2014.
On June 17, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 8.) After Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the Court again dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 13.)
For the reasons explained below, the Court finds the second amended complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice, as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (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.
Plaintiff names J.C. Garcia, T. Perez, J.L. Williams, Hirachetta, DeOchoa, Rodriguez, as Defendants, and Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent ...