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.

Tran v. Davey

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 10, 2017

TONY TRAN, Plaintiff,
v.
D. DAVEY, Warden, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOURTEEN DAY (14) DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Tony Tran (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 19, 2015. On October 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. On December 2, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on February 6, 2017 (ECF No. 11), is currently before the Court for screening.

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).

         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). 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 fo r the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff brings suit against D. Davey, Warden, Corcoran State Prison, where he was formerly housed and where the events in the complaint took place.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows: Defendant Davey is responsible for the operation of Corcoran State Prison and for the welfare of inmates. (EDF No. 11p. 3.) On October 19, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from his attorney indicating that the attorney did not receive any of the legal mail that Plaintiff sent to him regarding Plaintiff's habeas corpus petition. Plaintiff says that he checked his trust statement report and the mailing was paid for, but that the mailing of his legal mail was not recorded for mailing out. Plaintiff's trust account stated that five legal mailings were paid for by postage. Plaintiff requested the mail room copy of the CDCR 119 card on which legal mail is recorded for mailing out. Plaintiff filed a grievance to try and resolve the problem. Plaintiff was informed at the second level that the CDCR 119 card will not list legal mailings to his attorney and will only list legal mail to the court or the Board of Control. (ECF NO. 11, p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that due to the lack of professionalism at Corcoran, Plaintiff lost documents such as an original ballistic report, original court transcripts, and original affidavits. Plaintiff alleges that his attorney had to stop working on his habeas corpus petition. Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Davey responsible for violating Plaintiff's First Amendment right to petition the government for redress. Plaintiff seeks money damages and declaratory relief.

         III Deficiencies in Complaint

         A. Linkage and Supervisory Liability

         The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law]...subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs.,436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 liability to attach where...causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's ...


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.