United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND (ECF NO. 19) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY
Michael J. Seng STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
filed a first amended complaint before his initial complaint
was screened. (ECF No. 15.) His complaint and first amended
complaint were dismissed with leave to amend on the ground
that neither was complete in itself. (ECF No. 17.) His second
amended 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
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
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 incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility, but complains of acts that occurred at Wasco State
Prison. He names the following Correctional Officers
(“CO”) as defendants: Reynaga, Ziegler, Hurd,
Mauldonado, Hernandez, Petroff, Dominguez, Rios, Morales,
Solis, and Buttran.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
was arrested on July 7, 2014 and was detained at the Orange
County Jail. Plaintiff believes that the
“harassment” he experienced at Wasco State Prison
was part of a chain of events and harassment that began at
the jail. Thus, although the events occurring at the jail are
not the subject of the instant action,  Plaintiff
describes such events in some detail. Although difficult to
dicipher, they appear to allege that he had difficulty
learning of his court appearance dates and also had two cases
improperly “combined” in retaliation for
Plaintiff refusing a plea deal. He also was required to sign
false inmate trust documents.
was transferred to Wasco State Prison on August 5, 2015. On
August 14, 2015, Plaintiff sent a request to the library for
priority library user (“PLU”) status. Plaintiff
had an August 26, 2015 deadline to file a notice of appeal in
Case No. 14Wf2607. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff received a
PLU form to complete. He completed and sent in the form
listing his two case numbers, 14Wf2607 and 14Wf2141, and
indicated he had an August 26, 2015 court deadline.
August 27, 2015, Officer Reynaga delivered the
“unanswered” PLU form. By this time,
Plaintiff’s court deadline had passed. Plaintiff was
denied law library access.
August 28, 2015, Plaintiff attempted to re-submit the form.
When Plaintiff attempted to place an envelope with the form
in the mailbox, Officer Reynaga said, “Let me see the
envelope.” Reynaga crossed out Plaintiff’s name
on the envelope and told Plaintiff he was “good to
go.” Plaintiff then inserted the envelope in the
September 2, 2015, Plaintiff had not received a response. He
mailed a request for interview to “the ...