Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Heredia v. CCI

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 20, 2017

CCI, Defendant.



         Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights when he was attacked by another inmate while he was on the phone. Because he fails to link any of the defendants to his factual allegations, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED and Plaintiff is granted one last opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies.

         A. 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, 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

         Plaintiff complains of an incident that occurred at California Correctional Institute (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California and now names the following defendants: CCI Warden Kim Holland; Associate Warden T. Haak; Captain Dave Crounse; Lieutenant Luis Machado; Sergeant D. Bonnfil; Roger Groves, CDW; Sharon McKay, ERO: Karen Dugan-Berry, LRA: Lieutenant S. Archuleta; CCI Jane Doe; and CCII Jane Doe.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was using the phone at his assigned time when he was attacked by a “level 4 inmate.” Plaintiff ended up being shot twice by the tower officer with a “block gun” and sprayed with 2 cans of pepper-spray during the incident. Plaintiff alleges that he was taken out of a side door and dragged across the yard where he was kicked and yelled at by “C/O's.” The C/Os picked him up and pushed him down and put him in the program office cage, stripped naked. Plaintiff was “questioned by staff” and the nurse told Plaintiff that the inmate who attacked him was drunk. Plaintiff was taken to the A Yard SHU that night and could not see at all due to the pepper spray. He also could not use his left leg because of being shot. Plaintiff alleges he was not given medical attention for two days and wore “paper underwear for 15 days, no shower.” Plaintiff alleges he was Level II and if he had been housed in the correct housing the incident would not have happened. Plaintiff alleges that he did not belong on the Level 3 yard and that “Jane Doe custody counselor knew my custody level ‘tags' were placed on my cell door.” “Jane Doe Case Records Manager CCI knew” Plaintiff was not placed in the correct housing unit. “All other staff” allegedly put Plaintiff's “life in harms way.” Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and requests the “115 write up” and everything about this incident be removed from his C-File.

         Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims as he fails to link any of the individuals named as defendants to his factual allegations. However, Plaintiff may be able to correct the deficiencies in his pleading. Thus, he is being given the pleading requirements, the legal standards for claims he has identified, and ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY to amend his pleading.

         C. Pleading Requirements

         1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

         "Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions, " none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

         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), quoting 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 that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.

         While “plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . ., ” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations, " Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled, " Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982), and 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). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as possible in twenty-five pages or less. He should merely state which of his constitutional rights he feels were violated by each Defendant and its factual basis.

         2. ...

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.