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.

Martin v. Desha

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 15, 2017

LANELL MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
D. DESHA, Defendant.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 22) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was removed from the Madera County Superior Court on September 12, 2016. Plaintiff's complaint was screened and found to state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Desha, but no other claims. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff was ordered to file either an amended complaint or a notice that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim.

         Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) That complaint also was screened and the undersigned issued findings and recommendations for the action to proceed only a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Desha. (ECF No. 14.) However, the District Judge assigned to the case declined to adopt the findings and recommendations as to the First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that the chrono at issue was insufficiently adverse to support a retaliation claim. (ECF No. 21.) Specifically, the District Judge concluded that Plaintiff's claim that the chrono could be used to deny him parole was too speculative under the facts alleged. (Id.) Plaintiff was again given leave to amend his First Amendment retaliation claim. His remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice.

         His second amended complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 22.)

         I. Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious, ” or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. Pleading Standard

         Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

         To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

         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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is detained at the California Institution for Men and complains of acts that occurred at Valley State Prison (“VSP”). He names Correctional Officer D. Desha as the sole defendant.

         Briefly stated, Plaintiff contends that Defendant retaliated against him for filing grievances by writing a false chrono. His ...


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.