United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
L. Beck Judge
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
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
ALLEGATIONS IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
is currently incarcerated at CSP, where the events at issue
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.
November 12, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an appeal due to
Defendant's falsification of documents.
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.
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.
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
contends that the false assessment played a "very
important role" in the determination of guilt and