United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
No. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE.
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Vance Jackson ("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 September 22, 2014, 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 Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Dave Davey, Warden; (2) Marshall Fechner, Correctional Plant Manager II; and (3) K. J. Allen, Appeals Examiner, Office of Appeals.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fechner submitted false testimony regarding ceiling pipes, ductwork clean up and air ventilation being completed during an interview with the Appeal Examiner on January 16, 2014, which resulted in Plaintiff's grievance being denied. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Davey acted with deliberate indifference to prison conditions that exposed Plaintiff to a dorm contaminated with hazardous material, which occurred on September 27, 2014, when Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison MSF. Plaintiff alleges that the dorm condition could be seen throughout the dorm. For over 20 months, Plaintiff was forced to sleep in an environment and inhale material that deteriorated his health to the point of requiring a physician to issue steroids. Plaintiff attempted to submit numerous requests for interview forms to the Plant Operations Supervisor and health care service forms to medical regarding inappropriate living conditions and air ventilation issues to no avail.
On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a grievance that was granted in part at the first level on August 19, 2013. On September 4, 2013, an on-site inspection was performed by CDCR officials, which confirmed existence of debris, dust and dirt piled up throughout the dorm. It was recommended that a cleaning protocol be implemented, but no test samples were taken.
On October 4, 2013, the Chief Deputy Warden partially granted Plaintiff's appeal at the second level and ordered clean-up of the dorm to begin on November 5, 2013. Shortly after, a Plant Operations Employee arrived and attempted to perform a clean-up of the dorm without success. The clean-up was discontinued by the Second Watch Facility Sergeant based on particles becoming airborne and affecting the remaining occupants, including Plaintiff who had not been evacuated by custody personnel. The Plant Operations Employee left and did not return to perform any additional clean-up.
Plaintiff resubmitted a grievance to the third level. The grievance was denied by Appeal Examiner K. J. Allen based on perjury committed by the Correctional Plant Manager II Marshal Fechner on January 16, 2014, regarding completion of the clean-up detail. Plaintiff alleges that the Appeals Examiner failed to conduct a thorough investigation, such as an on-site inspection, which would have revealed that the work detail was never completed. Plaintiff claims he was denied the right to a fair hearing by prison officials.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, along with compensatory ...