United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO:
1) DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 24) 2)
DENY AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 25) 3) GRANT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COPIES (ECF NO. 26) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
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 &
On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Then on February 27, 2014, he filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10.) without the Court having screened his original Complaint and without any First Amended Complaint having been filed. On March 18, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint on March 30, 2015, and it is now before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 24.)
Plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 25.) and a motion for copies. (ECF No. 26.) The Court will address these motions 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, Sacramento CDCR Records employee John or Jane Doe I, Counselor Jane Doe, and other governmental entities or employees as defendants.
It is difficult to decipher Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and the allegations in it, but it appears to allege that Plaintiff has been falsely imprisoned and negligently incarcerated beyond the term of his sentence.
A. Section 1983
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) ( quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 "is not itself a source of substantive rights, ' but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979)).
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 ...