United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
F. BRENNAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
Screening Requirement and Standards
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the
complaint must comply with the “short and plaint
statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must
also include the specificity required by Twombly and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have
facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1)
pursuant to § 1915A and finds that the allegations are
too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for
relief. The complaint names Warden Macomber as the
sole defendant, and alleges that plaintiff's visitation
rights were restricted because he filed complaints. Plaintiff
alleges that he informed Warden Macomber about the
restriction on his visitation rights and that Macomber did
nothing to correct the problem.
has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a proper claim for
relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading
policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the
elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.
Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that
support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff
fails to state a claim for relief, the complaint must be
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1)
the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right;
and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting
under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d
930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim
unless the facts establish the defendant's personal
involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal
connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and
the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v.
Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff
may not sue any official - such as Warden Macomber -- on the
theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional
conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Plaintiff must ...