United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMSSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Screening Requirement and Standard
Howard Allen Young (“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 consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 6). On December 9, 2016, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint with leave
to amend. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff's third amended
complaint, filed on February 13, 2017, is currently before
the Court for screening. (ECF No. 33).
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).
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)).
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).
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 (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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison, where the
events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred.
Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Lieutenant
Gutierrez; (2) Sergeant Melvin; and (3) Captain Henderson.
Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Plaintiff was wrongfully denied yard/exercise for (90) ninety
days by Lt Gutierrez. [¶] Plaintiff was wrongfully
denied personal property including tennis shoes for (90)
ninety days, which Plaintiff required for foot problem
(medical), which were subsequently never returned to
Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff medical problems, based on
instructions by Capt Henderson and Lt. [Gutierrez].
(ECF No. 33, p. 3)
Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges:
SGT Melvin wrongfully denied Petitioner visitation from
out-of-state family members then threatened Petitioner with
RVR rules violation for manipulating staff for Petitioner
seeking compensation for monies spent by family members to
travel to California and ...