United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc. 9.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Zane Hubbard ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on February 28, 2014. (Doc. 1.)
The court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on June 23, 2014, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 9.)
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 or malicious, " 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 upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint is required to 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 (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). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants M. Marchak (MD), J. Alford (PhD), Urbano (MD), J. Moon (MD), Correctional Officer (C/O) Matthews, and C/O Madrigal (collectively, "Defendants"). All of the Defendants were employed by the CDCR at CSP at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff's factual allegations follow.
Plaintiff alleges that he is housed at the prison unlawfully as an enemy combatant under the Detainee Treatment Act. The narrative in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is vague and rambling, with multiple legal cites.
Plaintiff alleges that he is being subjected to illegal twenty-four-hour surveillance, has been wrongfully designated a "high risk medical inmate, " and has been forced into mental health treatment against his wishes. (First Amd Cmp at 6:16.) Plaintiff alleges that he notified defendants Matthews and Madrigal that he has a chip implanted in his system that he wants removed, and that he is hearing voices. Defendants Matthews and Madrigal handcuffed and shackled Plaintiff, placed a spit mask on his face, and escorted him to the prison hospital. At the hospital, Plaintiff explained to defendant Dr. Marchak about the interrogation against him and threats he was hearing. When asked by Dr. Marchak if he had mental health issues, Plaintiff said "No." (Id. at 4 ¶5.) Plaintiff told Dr. Marchak that officials are "depriving me of life with aversive therapy." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that "genocidal behavior" is being practiced in the Eastern District. (Id. ¶6.)
Dr. Marchak admitted Plaintiff to the suicide ward against his will. After being forced into a cell, defendants Matthews, Madrigal, Alvord, and other officers, held him down and cut off his clothing with scissors, twisted his arms up, and uncuffed him. Plaintiff alleges he was cleared of all psychological evaluations.
Later, Plaintiff was discharged to the yard and interrogated, threatened, and surveilled twenty-four hours per day. Defendant Dr. Urbano asked Plaintiff if he was still hearing voices, and Plaintiff responded, "Yes, " but did not request mental health treatment. (Id. ¶8.) Dr. Urbano still forced him into the Enhanced Outpatient Program. Defendant Dr. Moon forced Plaintiff to take psych medication which was ineffective. Plaintiff suffers from insomnia, shocked nerves, humiliation, ongoing harassment, and ...