Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peralta v. Fresno County Police Officers

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 10, 2017

MICHAEL PERALTA, Plaintiff,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS, et al., Defendants.

         THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 1)

         Plaintiff Michael Peralta, a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed on December 27, 2017.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         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 on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         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)(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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is housed at the California Men's Colony. Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested by Fresno County Police Officers for domestic violence sometime in 2016. (Compl. 3.) Upon his arrest, Plaintiff informed the officers that he had a serious medical condition that required medication that was in his home. (Compl. 3.) The arresting officers did not get his medication or note that he needed medication. (Compl. 3.)

         Plaintiff informed jail officials and they neglected Plaintiff's need and he suffered a major heart attack/stroke while he was deprived of his medication. (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages. Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. (Compl. 3.)

         For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. First Amendment

         Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the First Amendment were violated. The First Amendment provides for various freedoms of expression such as speech, religion, assembly, petition, etc. U.S. Const. amend. I. Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of any allegations that would invoke the protections of the First Amendment.

         B. Denial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.