United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING FAC WITH LEAVE TO
DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2015, Wondiyrad Kabede (“Plaintiff”), formerly a
prisoner at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California
(“Ironwood”), and currently a prisoner at Mule
Creek State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1
(“Complaint”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff
alleged that a false disciplinary violation resulted in the
parole board denying his petition to advance his parole
hearing. Id. at 2. He named as defendants the
Ironwood State Prison Appeals Coordinator, the California
Department of Corrections Secretary, and the Director's
Level Chief of Inmates Appeals.
filed the original Complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California. In April 2016,
that court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend,
finding that (1) it was unclear what constitutional
violations were committed and by whom, (2) the Complaint did
not contain a short and plain statement as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), and (3) any
challenge to Plaintiffs fact or duration of confinement
needed to be brought in a habeas petition. See Dkt.
2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
(“FAC”). Dkt. 12. The FAC names five defendants:
(1) B. Friend, correctional counselor; (2) Sergeant W.
Griffith; (3) Kendra Chambers, Ironwood State Prison Appeals
Coordinator; (4) W. McCullough, Ironwood State Prison Appeals
Coordinator; (5) R. L. Briggs, Chief of Director Level
Appeals; and (6) Jeffrey Beard, former California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary. FAC at 1-2. Like
the original Complaint, the FAC was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On March 28, 2017, that court transferred the case to this
Court because the allegations related to Plaintiffs
confinement at Ironwood State Prison in this judicial
district. See Dkt. 14.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A,
the Court must screen the FAC to determine whether the action
is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief might be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
the original Complaint, the FAC is disjointed and rambling.
To the best of the Court's understanding, Plaintiff
alleges the following:
. Prison officials falsely accused Plaintiff
of something so that his parole hearing would not be
. Plaintiff is in prison illegally;
. The California Parole Board Department is
. “Sworn officials” have lied
and stolen something from Plaintiff;
. Plaintiff was not subject to any rules
violation reports (“RVRs”) during the first eight