United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
Screening Requirement and Standards
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, " or
"seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b).
se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) "requires a complaint to include
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the
"short and plaint statement" requirements of Rule
8, its allegations must also include the specificity required
by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more than "naked assertions, " "labels
and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555-557. In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements do not suffice." Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have
facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1)
pursuant to § 1915A and finds that it must be dismissed
with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff
names the California Healthcare Facility and Warden Brian
Duffy as defendants. He alleges that after being
"written up, " he was placed on "C"
status and then seen by the classification committee. The
committee took him off of "C" status and removed
him from segregation. About a month later, the committee
removed plaintiff from his job and placed him back on
"C" status as a program failure. Plaintiff claims
that being put back on "C" status violated his
right against double jeopardy and deprived him of due
process. He also claims his Eighth Amendment rights were
violated. Under the applicable standards, discussed below,
plaintiff fails to state a proper claim for relief. To
proceed, he must file an amended complaint.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable
on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the
defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional
deprivation or a causal connection between the
defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged
constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885
F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588
F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not
sue any official on the theory that the official is liable
for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her
subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009). Instead, he must identify the particular person or
persons who violated his rights. He must also plead facts
showing how that particular person was involved in the
fails to state a claim against defendant Warden Duffy because
he does not include any factual allegations linking him to a
violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. The
alleged supervisory role of Duffy, as Warden, is not a proper
basis for liability.
addition, the California Healthcare Facility is not a
"person" subject to a § 1983 lawsuit. State
agencies, such as CDCR and its prisons, are immune from suit
under the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989);
Lucas v. Dep'tof Corr., 66 F.3d 245,
248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that prisoner's
Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR for damages and
injunctive relief were barred by Eleventh Amendment