United States District Court, C.D. California
CHARLES A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
JOHN MARSHALL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Charles A. Williams ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), against five defendants employed as Correctional Officers by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: (1) Lt. Yett; (2) Chris Steeb; (3) Brumgarder; (4) Davis; and (5) Gonzalez. However, upon screening the TAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismisses the TAC with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the TAC is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to file within 21 days of the service date of this Order a Fourth Amended Complaint remedying the deficiencies discussed below.
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant TAC against the aforementioned defendants. (ECF Docket No. ("dkt.") 47). In the TAC, Plaintiff asserts two claims pursuant to Section 1983: (1) an excessive force claim against defendants Davis, Gonzalez, Steeb, and Brumgarder, predicated on a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; (2) a retaliation claim against defendants Yett, Brumgarder, and Steeb, predicated on a violation of his First Amendment rights. TAC at 3-4. Plaintiff sues defendants Davis, Gonzalez, and Yett in only their individual capacities, and sues defendants Steeb and Brumgarder in both their individual and official capacities. Id . Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 7.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE TAC
The allegations in the instant TAC are scattered and do not form a cohesive narrative. Construed liberally, the TAC appears to allege the following facts.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently confined at the California State Prison in Lancaster, California. TAC at 2. On February 25, 2009, Plaintiff was slammed against a wall by defendants Yett, Steeb, and Brumgarder, apparently in retaliation for "speaking out in chow line." Id. at 3-4, 6. At the time, Plaintiff claims defendant Yett knew Plaintiff had medical problems caused by previous physical injuries. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff was subsequently taken to a medical infirmary to receive surgery. Id. at 6. While there, Plaintiff was pushed off a medical bed without any provocation, by defendants Davis and Gonzalez, injuring his shoulder. Id. at 3, 6.
Plaintiff also appears to claim he was later transferred to administrative segregation in "retaliation, " by defendants Yett, Steeb, and Brumgarder. Id. at 3-4, 6. Plaintiff claims to have lost property as a result of his transfer to administrative segregation. Id . Plaintiff also claims defendant Yett subsequently transferred him to another prison. Id. at 3.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must screen the TAC, and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for purposes of screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court applies the same pleading standard from Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it would when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil ...