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.

Mabie v. Hogan

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 28, 2017

PETER MICHAEL MABIE, Plaintiff,
v.
T. HOGAN, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 9) CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Peter Michael Mabie, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) No other parties have appeared.

         On January 26, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Now before the Court is Plaintiff's second amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.)

         I. Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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).

         II. Pleading Standard

         Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who deprives an individual of federally guaranteed rights “under color” of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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)), and 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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 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, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Golden State Modified Community Correctional Facility (“GSMCCF”) in MacFarland, California, where his claims arose.[1]

         Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendant T. Hogan, a Correctional Lieutenant at GSMCCF. He alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

         Plaintiff's factual allegations are as follows:

         On December 18, 2015, Lt. Hogan entered Plaintiff's housing unit, walked directly to Plaintiff's bed, and attempted to remove the lid to Plaintiff's locker box from behind Plaintiff's bed. In the process, she hit Plaintiff in the back of the head, leaving him injured and disoriented. When Plaintiff complained to Hogan that he was injured, she said “oh well, get over it!” Plaintiff was not the only inmate with a locker lid behind his bed, and Hogan could have removed any other locker lid, yet Hogan targeted Plaintiff even though he was asleep. Plaintiff believes Hogan wanted to make a point to Plaintiff not to have a locker lid behind his bed. Two weeks prior to this incident, Hogan questioned and harassed Plaintiff about his right to receive religious kosher meals. Plaintiff continues to suffer the effects of head trauma, including pain, soreness, dizziness, trouble sleeping, stress, and anxiety.

         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.