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.

Campbell v. Santillan

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 17, 2016

SENARBLE CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
v.
SANTILLAN, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

          Dennis L. Beck Judge

         Plaintiff Senarble Campbell ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on April 26, 2016. Plaintiff names Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") L.S.W. Laura Santillan as the sole Defendant.[1]

         A. SCREENING STANDARD

         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 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.

         Section 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 969.

         B. ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CSP, where the events at issue occurred.

         Plaintiff alleges that on November 10, 2015, Defendant deliberately falsified mental health documents with the intent to punish him. Defendant stated that on November 10, 2015, she came to Plaintiff's cell to conduct a mental health assessment for a pending Rules Violation Report ("RVR") related to an October 21, 2015, cell extraction.

         On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an appeal due to Defendant's falsification of documents.

         On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff was interviewed by B. Adam, Ph.D., about his appeal. Plaintiff explained to Dr. Adam that there was no way that Defendant could have conducted an interview on November 10, 2015, because Plaintiff was not in his cell. Plaintiff told Dr. Adam that he could easily check the log books to see what time Plaintiff left the building for an x-ray, and what time he returned. Dr. Adam told Plaintiff that this was not his job. Dr. Adam also told Plaintiff that the documents [Plaintiff] provided show that he was seen on November 10, 2015, at 8:49 a.m., and that the duration of the medical appointment was fifteen minutes.

         On December 20, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request for interview to Sgt. Bueno asking how he could get the exact time he left and returned after his x-rays on November 10, 2015. Sgt. Bueno had one of his officers check the building's log book and responded to Plaintiff's request- "Out to CTC at 11/10/15- 08:05, back from CTC 11/10/15- 11:30." ECF No. 1, at 4-5.

         The RVR hearing took place on December 30, 2015, and Plaintiff told the hearing officer that he did not have a mental health assessment. The officer stated that she had a copy of the assessment that took place on November 10, 2015, signed by Defendant. Plaintiff said that Defendant falsified the document and that he filed an appeal against her on November 12, 2015. Plaintiff told the officer that he wasn't in his cell at the time Defendant claims she interviewed him. The officer said that she could only go by what she had, which was the mental health assessment performed by Defendant.

         Plaintiff contends that the false assessment played a "very important role" in the determination of guilt and ...


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.