United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo ("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 initiated this action on September 8, 2014. He consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5.)
On March 17, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on March 30, 2015, 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).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations 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.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at SATF/Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names Correctional Officer Ramos, an Appeals Coordinator, as the sole defendant.
In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges that on September 1, 2013, he informed Warden Stu Sherman by letter about Correctional Officer Muñoz's harassment and threats. Plaintiff asked the warden to have his coworkers cease their threats. Plaintiff alleges that Warden Sherman failed to protect him and acted with deliberate indifference.
On September 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance against Officer Muñoz concerning the same allegations. Lt. John Doe at Facility C knew of the substantial risk of harm behind the officer's orders and requests. Plaintiff alleges that Lt. John Doe acted with deliberate indifference because he knew that risk that Plaintiff was facing and did nothing to fix the problems.
On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Sacramento Internal Affairs with the intention of solving the problem at an informal level. Plaintiff did not receive a response from Sacramento Internal Affairs. Plaintiff contends that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and state agencies have failed to act on Plaintiff's complaints and have acted with deliberate indifference.
On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff was the victim of an assault with deadly weapon in Facility C Building. Plaintiff was removed from the cell because he was a victim of assault. Correctional officers felt that Plaintiff presented an immediate threat to himself and the institution and housed him at the ASU ...