United States District Court, E.D. California
L.M. DANIELS, II Plaintiff,
FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et, Defendants.
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND (ECF No. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Screening Requirement and Standard
L.M. Daniels, II ("Plaintiff") is a former Fresno
County inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint,
filed on June 25, 2015, is currently before the Court for
screening. Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's
allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required
to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive
screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible,
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court
to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United
States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.
2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
time of the events in the Complaint, plaintiff was
incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff names the
following defendants: (1) Fresno County Jail; (2) Sherriff
Margaret M. Mims; (3) Officer Guiterrez; and (4) The
Classification Department. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
alleges that on about June 15, 2015, he told classification
officers that he has been a victim of sexual and physical
assault because of his "drop out" status and as a
registered sex offender. He asked for single cell status but
due to racial discrimination coupled with malice and
unconcern, they transferred Plaintiff to a four man cell with
active Crip and Asian boy gangs. Plaintiff alleges he told a
female floor officer that he was in danger, she saw the
hostile attitudes, but closed the door and walked away.
Plaintiff alleges he was then hit, punched and thrown out of
his wheel chair by gang members. He alleges he has only one
leg and one hand and never fought back. Plaintiff requests as
relief that Sheriff Mims be made aware of the incident, for
Officer Guiterrez to be removed from the facility, removal of
the Rule Violation Report and reinstate his loss of food time
Deficiencies of Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556-557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
complaint does not clearly set forth the factual allegations
underlying his claims. Plaintiff fails to describe specific
actions taken by the defendants named in his complaint that
violated his constitutional rights. If Plaintiff elects to
amend his complaint, he must set forth factual allegations
against each named defendant sufficient to state a claim.