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.
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael Jacobsen (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial
detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff's complaint, filed on November 21, 2016, is
currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) In the
complaint, Plaintiff names Property Sergeant Kirk Pool as the
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).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 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, 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.
is no longer detained in custody. At the time of the events
in the complaint, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the
Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff names Property Sergeant Kirk
Pool as the defendant. Plaintiff's allegations are quoted
as follows: “I would like my duffle bag and everything
in it or be reimbursed in the amount of $675.00. I would like
my backpack and everything in it or be reimbursed in the
amount of $5, 000.00. I would like injunctive relief to
change their policy to destroy property after 60 days at
least until your [sic] released.” (Doc. 1.)
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at
amended complaint is short, but fails to set forth the
necessary facts to state a claim that is plausible on its
face. Plaintiff fails to link Defendant Pool to any conduct.
Supervisory Liability and Linkage
threshold issue, under § 1983, Plaintiff must link the
named defendants to the participation in the violation at
issue. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons v.
Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir.
2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218,