United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND (DOC. 1)
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Saladin Rushdan, aka Robert Woods, (“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's complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, is
currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff
filed a consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Doc. 9.)
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, 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).
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.
of Plaintiff's Allegations
is currently housed at California State Prison, Los Angeles
County at Lancaster. The events in the complaint are alleged
to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed in Corcoran State
Prison. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) R.
Gear; (2) D.M. Singh; (3) F. Vasquez; (4) M.V. Sexton; and
(5) M. Voong. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff sues the individuals in
both their individual and official capacities.
alleges: Plaintiff has been for decades diagnosed and treated
for Keloids and complications. Plaintiff filed multiple civil
rights lawsuits to get medical care, many of which ended up
settling with provision of medical care. There was a
violation of the settlement and Plaintiff filed another
lawsuit which also settled. He was advised in one of the
lawsuits to file a state court suit against the Director of
Corrections. Plaintiff filed a state court action and
submitted his in forma pauperis form for approval to the
Prison Trust Account Office at Corcoran. The Trust Office
refused to process his informa pauperis form because
plaintiff has listed his real and legal name and listing his
prison commitment name as an a.k.a. Because he could get his
form processed, the state court referred to process his
lawsuit and rejected it. Defendant Gear is the Trust Office
Accounting Officer and is responsible for prisoner accounts.
Defendant Gear refused to process the form which caused
Plaintiff to lose the state court lawsuit by default.
Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal grievance. Defendant Singh is a
business manager and agreed and concurred with Gear's
discriminatory action on First Level Appeal and failed to
assist plaintiff's access to court. Defendant Vasquez is
Chief Deputy Warden and reviewed the appeal at the Second
Level and concurred with the first level. Defendant Sexton is
the Associate Warden and upheld the Amended Second Level
Response. Defendant Voong is the Chief Officer of Appeals who
refuses to answer Plaintiff's 602 grievance on the Third
Level reviews. The 602 appeal has been returned to Corcoran
to the Second Level three times.
alleges interference with court access. Since Defendant Gear
refused to process his in forma pauperis form, his state
court action was rejected. Plaintiff also alleges retaliation
stating he was transferred to Los Angeles Prison in March
2016. Plaintiff also claims Religious Discrimination.
Plaintiff alleges that he changed his name in 1983 according
to American Law, from “Woods” to his real name of
Saladin Rushdan. Plaintiff has filed numerous lawsuits under
his real name and mail has been sent and received under his
real name. Plaintiff alleges he used proper procedure and
that to prevent Plaintiff from using his real name is
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of $250, 000
against each defendant and punitive damages and to terminate
all prison officials involved. (Doc. 1).
general, Plaintiff may not hold a defendant liable solely
based upon their supervisory positions. Liability may not be
imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions
of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat
superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v.
Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir.
2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218,
1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d
930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Supervisors may be held liable only
if they “participated in or directed the violations, or
knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent
them.” Ta ...