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.

Poyner v. Gonzales

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 28, 2015

JONATHAN POYNER, Plaintiff,
v.
A. M. GONZALES, Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Findings and Recommendations

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Jonathan Poyner ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed on April 15, 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.

II. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Correctional Officer F. Espinoza; (2) Correctional Officer D. Menzie; (3) Correctional Officer G. Vidana; and (4) Correctional Lieutenant A. M. Gonzales.

Claim 1:

In Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

During a Ninty [sic] (90) day period defendant F. Espinoza was the 3C04 Control Booth Officer, who failed to provide me with my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week. D. Menzie, was working as 3C04 Floor Officer and refuse to allow me my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week. G. Vidana, was working as 3C04 Floor Officer, who failed to provide me with my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week. A. M. Gonzales, was the Correctional lieutenant who failed to assure that I received my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week and all of the aforementioned defendants were aware of this clear requirement. My outdoor exercise is a right, not a privilege that can be totally deprived without a showing of safety and security concerns. While the law does require prison officials to restrict outdoor exercise as a result of disciplinary action, such a restriction is limited to the 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week. I did not receive 1hr of outdoor exercise for a full period of 90dys. As a result, I suffered medical injuries.

(ECF No. 9, pp. ...


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.