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.

Garcia v. Beard

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 18, 2015

RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY BEARD, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZALBE CLAIM (ECF NO. 10) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS AND ASSISTANCE (ECF NO. 22) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS SCREENING ORDER

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Raymond Thomas Garcia, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 4 & 10.)

On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on February 27, 2014 (ECF No. 10.) without the Court having screened his original Complaint and without a First Amended Complaint having been filed. Plaintiff's SAC is now before the Court for screening.

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Status and Assistance. (ECF No. 22.) It too will be addressed below.

II. 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, malicious, " or 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 on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff identifies Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Jeffrey Beard, Warden John Doe I of Kern Valley State Prison, Counselor Jane Doe, and John Doe II of CDCR Sacramento as defendants.

Plaintiff's allegations can be summarized essentially as follows:

Defendant Beard deprived Plaintiff of proper parole proceedings. Plaintiff was informed via a fax from Sacramento that his sentence had been calculated incorrectly under the penal code, and he would be compensated for the excess days he served in custody. However, Plaintiff never received compensation. During the time period in which Plaintiff should have been released, he was involved in an altercation with his cellmate and severely injured.

Defendants' Beard and Warden John Doe negligence resulted in Plaintiff being falsely imprisoned.

Defendant Jane Doe fabricated resources which deprived Plaintiff of available remedies for release.

Defendant John Doe II failed to recognize the error in calculating Plaintiff's good time credit which ...


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.