United States District Court, E.D. California
RICHARD S. KINDRED, Plaintiff,
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is before the Court for screening.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The in forma pauperis statute provides, "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).
II. PLEADING STANDARD
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).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or 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 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id . Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
III. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH"), where the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) the California Department of State Hospitals, (2) Cliff Allenby, Director of the California Department of State Hospitals, (3) Audrey King, (4) Remi Smith, (5) Mathew Collins, (6) Jeanette Rivera, (7) Angela Padilla, (8) Guadalupa McKenzie, (9) Kenneth Underwood, (10) Marissa Bigot, (11) Paul Alkehougie, (12) Cinithia Martinez, (13) Angel Felix, (14) Jose Lopez, (15) Edward Tongwa, (16) Jorge Zavala, (17) Kenneth Bell, (18) Tom Faina, (19) Daniel Wagoner, (20) Dr. Jeffrey Hasson, and (21) Doug Veit.
Plaintiff's allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
Plaintiff is a practicing Native American. Since May 2014, Defendants have interfered with and denied Plaintiff's right to practice his "way of life" in violation of the First Amendment.
In May 2014, Defendant Bigot denied Plaintiff and other Native Americans the right to hold Sunrise Prayer Ceremonies even though other religions are allowed to continue this practice. Defendant Bigot retaliated against Plaintiff and other Native Americans who displayed sacred or spiritual items. Plaintiff was retaliated against for having a Dream Catcher hanging over his head, a common practice for Native Americans. Defendant Bigot ordered Defendant Rivera to confiscate Plaintiff's spiritual rug. Defendant Felix desecrated Plaintiff's medicine bag by attempting to confiscate it.
Defendants Allenby, King, Smith, Collins, Padilla, McKenzie, Underwood, Alkehougie, Martinez, Lopez, Tongwa, Zavala, and Bell participated in denying Plaintiff spiritual items that are approved by the California Department of State Hospitals and CSH and/or participated in retaliation against and harassment of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also was denied his right to Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as follows:
In July and September 2014, Plaintiff received spiritual packages from a recognized vendor of Native American spiritual items. Plaintiff was denied his items.
Plaintiff filed complaints with the California Office of Patient's Rights. His complaints were not reviewed by the Office's Advocates or Defendant King within the allotted time frame.
Defendants Smith, Collins, Bigot, Veit, Hasson, Zavala, and McKenzie interfered with Plaintiff's ability to file Elder Abuse/Dependent Adult Abuse complaints. These Defendants also refused to adhere to CSH administrative directives regarding "Denial of Rights" and the seizure of contraband property.
Defendants King and Michell failed to investigate allegations of Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse as required under state law.
Defendant Rivera filed false police reports with the Department of Police Services to justify assaulting Plaintiff on August 29, 2014.
CSH failed to investigate and charge Defendant Bell with Elderly/Dependent Adult Abuse despite Defendant Bell's continuous retaliation against Plaintiff for filing complaints. This was ...