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.

K'Napp v. Arlitz

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 6, 2015

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K'NAPP, Plaintiff,
v.
ARLITZ, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT [ECF No. 50]

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K'Napp is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on March 23, 2009. Local Rule 302.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint, filed December 18, 2014. (ECF No. 50.)

On September 16, 2014, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff's third amended complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff appealed the September 16, 2014, order to the United States Court of Appeals and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 49.)

Because Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint is a verbatim copy of his prior third amended complaint, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, with prejudice and without leave to amend.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require" detailed factual allegations, "but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)).

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are" merely consistent with "a defendant's liability..." stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Throughout the first ten years and five months of Plaintiff's confinement within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), numerous doctors at multiple prisons independently and consistently verified that Plaintiff suffers from chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, and depression. Plaintiff was prescribed psychiatric medication to be taken on a daily basis and it was ordered that he be housed in a single cell. During this time period, Plaintiff and his mother availed themselves of speech to report and address unlawful events taking place with the CDCR.

On August 23, 2005, Defendant Hickman caused Plaintiff to be transferred to Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP). Beginning on August 23, 2004, Defendants Collins, Delk, Grannis, Hickman, Negrete, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to be and remain deprived of personal property belonging to him. Also, on August 23, 2005, Defendants Arlitz, Does 1 and 2, Hickman, Hitchcock, Parks, Prince, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff to remain completely deprived of and denied doctor-prescribed psychiatric medication until September 4, 2005, while he was locked inside a windowless cell twenty-four hours a day with no outdoor exercise, telephone access, visitation with loved ones, religious services, sunlight, fresh air, or view of the outdoor until September 8, 2005.

Beginning on August 28, 2005, Defendants Grannis, Hickman, Parks, Shannon, Tilton, Woodford, and Yates caused and allowed Plaintiff's inmate appeal regarding the above ...


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.