United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, (ECF, 1) OBJECTIONS DUE
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Darrion Larry Hicks is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's
complaint, filed November 22, 2016.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or 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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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 Service, 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.
brings this action alleging that funds to pay his court fees
were improperly deducted from his trust account. On December
4, 2014, Plaintiff received a transfer of $200.01 into his
trust account. Defendant Hicks placed an encumbrance hold on
Plaintiff's trust account for $40.00 each to pay fees due
for two court cases. Plaintiff filed an appeal on January 8,
2015. Defendant Hicks admitted that the amount taken from
Plaintiff's account was too high and $10.00 was returned
to his trust account. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Hicks
falsified his trust account statement to show that $30.14 was
deducted from his trust account on January 1, 2015.
Defendants Dailo, Best, and Wood reviewed Plaintiff's
grievance and denied or rejected it.
is bringing this action against the Defendant Hicks and
Defendants Dailo, Best, and Wood who considered his appeals.
Plaintiff also includes as a defendant J. Pimentel who is a
trust officer. Plaintiff alleges that the deprivation of
funds from his trust account violates the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment protects prisoners not only from inhumane methods
of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of
confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041,
1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions
of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh,
they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction
of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing
Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted).
Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological
purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that
mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth
Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks
and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S.
730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.
officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided
adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care,
and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726,
731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted),
but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in prison
represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465
F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To maintain an Eighth
Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm
to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at
847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th
Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14
(9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045;
Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos,
152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
allegations that funds were improperly deducted from his
trust account do not demonstrate that he was at a serious
risk of harm. Plaintiff's allegations regarding