United States District Court, E.D. California
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
ARCELIA CASTANEDA, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s
June 24, 2016, complaint is before the Court for screening.
forma pauperis statute provides, “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).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
(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. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
is an uncommitted civil detainee housed at Coalinga State
Hospital (“CSH”). Though Plaintiff’s prison
sentence was completed on December 24, 2000, he has since
been held over for civil commitment trial pursuant to
California's Sexually Violent Predator Act
(“SVPA”). Arcelia Castaneda is a Psychiatric
Technician employed at CSH and is named as a defendant in her
official and individual capacities.
claims can be summarized as follows:
to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6606(b),
Plaintiff refuses to participate in evaluations, hospital
care and treatment programs, or group hospital sessions at
CSH. In retaliation for this refusal, Defendant Arcelia
Castaneda accessed Plaintiff’s confidential medical