Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Garcia v. Podsakoff

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 14, 2017

EDWIN GARCIA, Plaintiff,



         Plaintiff Edwin Garcia (“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 filed a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction on May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on December 15, 2016 is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.)

         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 for 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 California State Prison at Corcoran, California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names Podsakoff, correctional officer, and Quillen, correctional officer, D.B. Hernandez, Sergeant; T. Wyman, Counselor; Viganya, property correctional officer.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows. In Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Podsakoff and Qulilen tried to get plaintiff harmed by “spreading rumors and trying to get an inmate in his cell to harm” Plaintiff. On September 9, 2015, Defendant Podsakoff refused to give Plaintiff a pen because he lost the tip of the pen. Later at dinner, Podsakoff and Plaintiff got into a verbal confrontation and Podsakoff threatened to blow Plaintiff away and said he'll see to it that Plaintiff does not make it home. Plaintiff held up the food try in order to report the misconduct.

         Plaintiff told Sergeant Duncan about the threat. Sergeant Duncan lied during the investigation of Podsakoff. The next day (September 10, 2015) Defendant Quillen conspired with Podsakoff and tried to carry out Podsakoff's threats and spread lies and said I was a homo and told me he'd get someone in his cell to get him. People tried to cover up the incidents on September 9, 2015 and September 10, 2015. Plaintiff filed a 602 on Podsakoff and Podsakoff later told Plaintiff that he threw it out. Plaintiff complains that Podsakoff and Quillen conspired to have Plaintiff harmed.

         In claim 2, Plaintiff alleges bad living conditions. Plaintiff alleges that on September 28, 2015, he told counselor Wyman about his safety concerns. He had been on single cell status. Plaintiff explained of two cell incidents that occurred due to officers' “lying and old case factors.” The committee took his single cell claiming he was E.O.P. Plaintiff was concerned because he feared for his life if he were double celled. Plaintiff told the counselor that Quillen tried to set Plaintiff up with a southsider then a special needs cellie. Plaintiff states Correctional officer Lawrence passed another inmate Plaintiff's 128-G with sensitive information in it. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are deliberately indifferent to prison politics. Defendant Wyman put plaintiff double celled. Plaintiff filed an emergency appeal on September 29, 2015, but D. Goree, the appeals coordinator said an emergency is not warranted. Wyman and Goree and Sergeant Denman and Sergeant Hernandez tried covering up when Defendant Podsakoff and Lawrence conspired to have Plaintiff murdered.

         In Claim 3, Plaintiff alleges that Sgt Hernandez and property Viganya retaliated because Plaintiff filed a grievance by breaking his TV. Plaintiff filed a 602 on September 2, 2015 because of property delay. Plaintiff alleges defendant Viganya then broke his TV. Hernandez refused to conduct an interview and wrongly claimed that Plaintiff refused the interview. Sgt Hernandez cancelled the 602 and Plaintiff appealed the cancellation and all his arguments were ignored. Officer Viganya and Sergeant Hernandez were retaliating for plaintiff exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances.

         Plaintiff seeks as damages $7, 000, 000 in compensation and punitive damages.

         III. Discussion

         A. ...

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.