United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND OF SERVICE; GRANTING
MOTION FOR SCREENING AND DENYING DEFENDANT DUCART'S
MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NOS. 18, 24.
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge.
a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at
Pelican Bay State Prison. The Court reviewed the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), found that it stated a
cognizable claim under the First Amendment against Defendant
Warden C.E. Ducart, and ordered the United States Marshal to
serve the summons and complaint upon him. (ECF No. 10.) In
the same order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint once he learned the name of the
“Doe” defendants. On January 17, 2017, Ducart
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a cognizable claim for relief against him. On March 22, 2017,
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion and a First
Amended Complaint naming F. Richards, S. Ramirez, L.
Gutierrez, J. Preston, D. Bradbury, and M. Voong, all of whom
are prison officials, as defendants. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) The
next day, Ducart filed a motion requesting screening of the
First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (ECF
original complaint is superseded by the First Amended
Complaint, Ducart's motion to dismiss the original
complaint is DENIED as moot. Ducart's motion for screening
of the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. For the reasons
discussed below, service of the summons and the First Amended
Complaint is ordered upon Defendants Richards, Ramirez and
Gutierrez and dispositive motions are scheduled. The claims
against Defendants Preston, Bradbury and Voong are DISMISSED.
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.
2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to state a
claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 1974.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that Defendant F. Richards fired him from his prison
job in the kitchen, Defendant S. Ramirez confiscated his
television and moved him to a different part of the prison,
and Defendant L. Gutierrez threatened to harm him, all
because of Plaintiff's Muslim faith. Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendant Ducart was put on notice of this
misconduct but failed to correct it. Such allegations, when
liberally construed, state a cognizable claim against these
Defendants for violating his First Amendment right to freely
exercise his religious beliefs and for the violation of his
rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1.
alleges that Defendants Preston, Bradbury and Voong did not
properly process, investigate, or grant his administrative
appeals of these issues. These allegations, even if true, do
not amount to the violation of the United States Constitution
or other federal law because there is no federal
constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or
grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d
850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiff does not
state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983
against Defendants Preston, Bradbury and Voong.
Defendant Ducart's motion to dismiss is DENIED, and his
motion to screen the ...