United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 3.) His
first 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
essential elements: (1) 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 Cir. 1987).
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.
brings this suit against a number of defendants for conduct
that occurred while he was housed at Ironwood State Prison in
Blythe, California: Correctional Counselor B. Friend,
Sergeant W. Griffith, Appeals Coordinators K. Chambers and W.
McCullough, Chief of the Director's Level Appeals R.L.
Briggs, and California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary Jeffrey Beard.
allegations may be fairly summarized as follows:
alleges that during his first eight years of incarceration,
he received no CDCR 115 Disciplinary Rule Violation Reports
(“RVR”). After those eight years, he was
transferred to San Quentin State Prison in San Quentin,
California, where he received his first RVR. He was then
transferred to New Folsom State Prison in Folsom, California,
where he received 11 RVRs, and then transferred to Pelican
Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, where he
received another 11 RVRs. Each of these RVRs was written
within a 30-day period upon arrival at the new institution.
claims these RVRs were issued “to jack-up my
classification score point to keep me at maximum security to
get me killed.” He also claims he was housed with a
mentally ill inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison “to get
me raped and killed several times….” The amended
complaint suggests that some of the RVRs that he received are
related to his refusal to accept cell mates “to protect
[his] life.” Finally, plaintiff accuses “someone
from parole board” of ordering “underground to
give me CDC 115 Rule Violation to deny me hearing and
amended complaint does not address the defendants'
involvement in the violation of his rights. Rather, this
pleading references attachments to his original complaint,
which provide context for the involvement of the named
defendants. These attachments include an allegedly false RVR
filed by defendant B. Friend at Ironwood State Prison
accusing plaintiff of entering her office without permission.
The attachments also include (a) a grievance filed by
plaintiff concerning the RVR, (b) the responses to that
grievance by Ironwood State Prison employees and defendants