United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Maurice Hunt is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on December 22, 2014.
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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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.
To state a claim, Plaintiff must link each named defendant to a violation of his constitutional rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under Bivens. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff is required to set forth 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). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff names the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Peggy Crawford, and Katherine L. Hart as Defendants in this action.
On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff was ordered to proceed pro se, and on August 6, 2013, a criminal trial began which ended on August 9, 2013. Plaintiff was present during the trial and raised all objections and conducted cross-examination.
In April 2014, Plaintiff received a package from Katherine L. Hart containing trial transcripts in his criminal case number 1:13-cr-00189. After reviewing the transcripts, Plaintiff realized that the transcripts were not a true and accurate account of the testimony which took place during his trial, including omissions of testimony from various witnesses, inserts of responses that witnesses never made while testifying, and restructuring of the body of some of the witnesses' testimony.
Katherine L. Hart reported to Plaintiff that she received that transcripts from Peggy Crawford and forwarded the file to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In filing papers before the Ninth Circuit, Katherine Hart stated that she did not tamper with the court reporters transcripts. Plaintiff has filed objections, pro se, ...