United States District Court, E.D. California
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
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.
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.)
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. §
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.
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.
is currently incarcerated at the Golden State Modified
Community Correctional Facility (“GSMCCF”) in
MacFarland, California, where his claims arose.
brings this suit against Defendant T. Hogan, a Correctional
Lieutenant at GSMCCF. He alleges violations of the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
factual allegations are as follows:
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.