United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
L. BECK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Maurice Muhammad ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this
action on April 28, 2014. On June 5, 2015, the Court screened the
complaint and determined that Plaintiff had failed to state a
claim for relief. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an
amended complaint. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint. He names Shafter Modified Community
Correctional Facility ("MCCF") Counselors Nieto and
Weaver as Defendants.
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. §
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,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set
forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim that is plausible on its
face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true,
legal conclusions are not. Id.
1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of
Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by
persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v.
Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long
v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's allegations must link the actions
or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his
rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under
section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons
v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21
(9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d
1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
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.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
is currently housed at California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility ("SATF") in Corcoran, California. He was
incarcerated at Shafter MCCF and Corcoran SATF when the
events giving rise to this action took place.
alleges the following. On December 19, 2013, Plaintiff was
transferred to Shafter MCCF from Folsom Prison. Upon his
arrival, Plaintiff discovered that MCCF had no law library.
Plaintiff informed Defendants Nieto and Weaver that he had at
least seven active cases that he was in the middle of
litigating. After filing two CDC-602s which were never signed
or returned, Plaintiff was transferred on January 6, 2014, to
Corcoran SATF, which had a law library. Prior to his
departure, Plaintiff was advised by Defendant Nieto that the
transfer was permanent because MCCF did not have a law
library, nor were there plans for one to be established in
eighteen days at Corcoran SATF, Plaintiff was transferred
back to MCCF on January 24, 2014. Plaintiff met with
Defendant Nieto on January 28, 2014, whereupon Nieto informed
Plaintiff that he was transferred back because they decided
that one day MCCF would get a law library, but they did not
know when. Plaintiff again stressed to Nieto his urgent need
for a law library by showing him court deadlines and
paperwork. Nieto advised that he would forward it to his
supervisor, Defendant Weaver, and for Plaintiff to be
patient. Nieto also advised Plaintiff to take the matter up
with Sacramento. The following day, Plaintiff went back to
Nieto's office and picked up the unforwarded/unsigned
paperwork and took it directly to Defendant Weaver. Weaver
stated he thought Plaintiff had finished litigating after
which Plaintiff presented him the same documents he had
presented to Nieto, with proof of at least another 9 months
of potential litigation. Defendant Weaver then stated that
Plaintiff was being a "pain in his ass" after which
he made copies of the paperwork and added that it was now out
of his hands and to get the hell out of his office. Plaintiff
asked Weaver to sign the CDCR 22 form and Weaver replied that
he wasn't done with it yet and again to get the hell out
of his office.
claims that Defendants' actions caused him to be unable
to answer and/or rebut before a February 10, 2014, deadline
in his $1, 000, 000 lawsuit. He further claims Nieto and
Weaver caused his legal mail to get lost, crossed up or
delayed. Plaintiff seeks $175, 000.00 in punitive and
Access to the Courts
has a constitutional right of access to the courts and prison
officials may not actively interfere with his right to
litigate. Silva v. Di ...