United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF
ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND [ECF NO. 23]
Martin Ware is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction; therefore, this action was referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed February 16, 2017.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons
proceeding in pro per. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject
to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. §
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 demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo
County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
persons proceeding pro se are still entitled to have their
pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved
in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher,
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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.
names C. Pfeiffer, G. Jaime, J. Usher, A. Garcia, E. Perez,
D. Tarnoff, K. Kaufman, M. Faulkner, M. Contreras, B.
Marroquin, Lane, J. Montecino, D. Davey, V. Sica, A.
Castillo, and D. Goss, as Defendants.
about April 10, 2013, Plaintiff arrived at Kern Valley State
Prison (KVSP), in Delano, California.
about April 10, 2013, Defendants former Warden Bitter and
Chief Deputy Warden Davey failed to complete an initial
housing review for Plaintiff to receive appropriate placement
in the general population and placed him on sensitive needs
yard with another Afro-American inmate who exposed Plaintiff
to racial discrimination and fear of injury because Plaintiff
is a mixed origin Mexican national. Plaintiff was housed with
the inmate from April 10, 2013 to October 12, 2014.
about September 2, 2014, Defendant B. Marroquin failed to
provide Plaintiff an appropriate inmate housing assignment
about September 22, 2014, B. Marroquin failed to complete a
secondary general safety and housing need assessment and/or
notify the facility C program office supervisor of receiving
a request for interview.
about October 9, 2014, Defendant B. Marroquin failed to
complete a third general safety housing needs assessment
and/or notify the facility C program office supervisor to be
approved for a transfer.
about October 12, 2014, Defendant R. Lane failed to complete
a general safety housing needs assessment for an emergency
cell move compaction.
about October 27, 2014, Defendant J. Mentecino denied
Plaintiff's request to not be rehoused on “C”
lower yard with inmate Stanley because he is an enemy that
“most probably would lead to future force and
violence.” On or about October 29, 2014, Defendant A.
Castillo denied Plaintiff's request to receive counselor
assistance to obtain personal legal documents in the
possession of “C” program office administrators.
Plaintiff advised Castillo that his personal documents were
necessary to ...