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.

Salcido v. Villa

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 15, 2017

SIXTO LOYA SALCIDO, Plaintiff,
v.
I. VILLA, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 22.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

          GARY S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         Sixto Loya Salcido (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Clerk opened a new civil action. (ECF No. 1.) On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint using the court's form. (ECF No. 6.) On May 22, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 8.)

         The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on April 20, 2016, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 22.)

         II. 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “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).

         A complaint is required to 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)). 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). To state a viable claim, 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

         III. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. The events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names one defendant, Correctional Officer (C/O) I. Villa.

         Plaintiff's allegations follow. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was making signals and voices from scenes from a movie, off to the side of where defendant C/O Villa was standing. Plaintiff was reenacting how he was shot, because inmates in line wanted to know how he got bullet wounds in his neck and metal in his face. Defendant Villa accused Plaintiff of disrespecting him and Plaintiff was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) for threatening a peace officer. This charge was not true. Defendant Villa claimed that Plaintiff had said to him, “If you didn't have that uniform on, I would kick your ass.” (ECF No. 22 at 8:9-10.) C/O Villa had no witnesses who heard Plaintiff make that statement. Plaintiff is a mobility impaired permanent wheelchair user. There is no way, in Plaintiff's physical position, that Plaintiff could kick anyone's ass.

         Plaintiff was given a disciplinary hearing. It was apparent at the hearing that defendant C/O Villa did not feel threatened by Plaintiff. C/O Villa was having a bad day and took it out on Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to be placed in Administrative Segregation, forfeit good time credits, and lose privileges. Plaintiff did not have any witnesses at the hearing and was told that the investigative officer could not find them.

         Plaintiff requests relief as the court sees applicable.

         IV. ...


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.