United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF [ECF No.
Michael Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction, and Defendants declined jurisdiction;
therefore, this matter was referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, which was
removed from state court and filed in this Court on April 12,
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
or malicious, ” that “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo
County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled
to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is
now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to 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 678-79;
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts
that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
September 24, 2015, while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran
State Prison, he allowed inmate Williams to watch
Plaintiff's RCA television due to a disagreement over the
dayroom television. Plaintiff asked inmate Williams to store
the television inside his locker once the football game was
over, and inmate Williams did so. However, Defendant
correctional officer Padilla went into the dorm and
confiscated Plaintiff's television from Williams, as
there was racial tension amongst African-American and
Hispanic inmates over the dayroom television. Plaintiff was
advised that inmate Perez told officer Padilla (who is
Hispanic) that Plaintiff's television was inside
Williams's locker. After Plaintiff's television was
confiscated, Plaintiff approached Padilla with the receipts
for his television, and Padilla was unprofessional about the
matter. Padilla told Plaintiff to write him up because he was
not getting his television back.
September 26, 2013, Defendant sergeant J. Cicone, had
Plaintiff placed in administrative segregation based on
confidential information he received of a threat by Plaintiff
that he was going to kill Padilla if he did not return his
television. Plaintiff contends that because confidential
information was used against him, he was denied his rights
under the Sixth Amendment.
October 2, 2015, B. Phillips was assigned as Plaintiff's
investigative employee. Plaintiff spoke with Phillips about
the incident on September 26, 2015, and Plaintiff presented a
list of fourteen witnesses he wished for Phillips to
interview. However, Phillips refused to take the list of
October 8, 2015, Plaintiff received Phillips' report and
it indicated that Plaintiff did not request any witnesses and
was not in need of assistance at his disciplinary hearing.
Plaintiff requested a new investigator to be appointed and
postponement of the disciplinary hearing. However, Plaintiff
never received a response to his request.
October 18, 2015, Plaintiff signed a postponement and waiver
of the disciplinary hearing; however, the hearing proceeded
forward. Plaintiff was not allowed to have witness testimony
considered or present documentary evidence in support of his
defense. Plaintiff was found guilty of the rules violation
report and received a loss of sixty days good-time credits as
well as other privileges.
1, 2016, Plaintiff requested the findings of the rules
violation report and discovered that Dr. K. Geis indicated
that he conducted a psyche evaluation on Plaintiff. However,
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Geis never performed a psyche
evaluation on him between the months of March to November
2015. Plaintiff was not taking any psyche medication. After
Plaintiff was found guilty of the offense, he was placed on a
transportation bus, despite the fact that he was suffering
from mental health problems.