United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 13)
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Mario King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2017, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with leave to
amend. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed on June 26, 2017, is currently before the Court for
screening. (ECF No. 13.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
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 currently housed at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran,
California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to
have occurred. Plaintiff names Sergeant J. Barrios, C. Ramos
and Warden S. Sherman as defendants in this action.
of background, Plaintiff alleges that he was housed at CSATF
on Facility A and served as a caregiver for ADA inmates. In
the course of this service, Plaintiff filed a case, No.
1:16-cv-00433-LJO-SAB (PC), against W.S. Wadkins. Plaintiff
alleges that W.S. Wadkins used Defendant Barrios to retaliate
against Plaintiff for the litigation.
first claim, Plaintiff alleges he tried to appeal the adverse
actions of Defendant Barrios regarding “false
allegations that ‘SOME ALLEGATION' . . . was made
towards, against, stared, argued, and /or had words with
correctional officer Sgt. Barrios.” (ECF No. 13, p. 2.)
Correctional Officer Wickert communicated to Plaintiff that
he stared or made a statement to Defendant Barrios. Plaintiff
asserts he has two witnesses that can validate he never saw
or spoke with Defendant Barrios on June 23, 2016. However,
Defendant Barrios moved Plaintiff to another building, but
this does not lessen Plaintiff's visibility nor does it
prevent Plaintiff and Defendant Barrios from seeing each
other. Plaintiff contends that he provided witnesses to
Correctional Officer Wickert to dispute the false
allegations, but Correctional Officer Wickert “advised
Plaintiff that correctional officer Sgt. J. Barrios stated,
“Failure to move will result in a CDC 115 RULES
VIOLATION REPORT.” (Id.) Plaintiff appears to
allege that the transfer to Housing Unit 3 was an adverse
transfer or punishment without procedural due process.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Barrios' actions are
retaliatory acts for the purpose of harassment, intimidation,
oppression, and exploitation of an inmate under Penal Code
second claim, Plaintiff alleges he tried to file a citizen
complaint against Defendant Barrios for his acts on June 23,
2016, by way of a 602. Defendant Ramos filed Plaintiff's
appeal, but never returned it or answered it. Plaintiff
contends that because of Defendant Ramos' failure to be
properly trained, she used underground regulations. Plaintiff
alleges a “Greenwall” in which CDCR staff act on
“behalf of one another to protect and/or discourage its
wards from pursuing legal actions against correctional
staff.” (ECF No. 13, p. 4.) Plaintiff further alleges
that Defendant Sherman allows his staff to use underground
regulations, and the defendants have conspired together to
intentionally harass and intimidate Plaintiff, who filed a
grievance as part of his First Amendment rights.
third claim, Plaintiff contends Defendant Sherman has failed
to train his employees in the execution of their duties and
allowed the “Green Wall” to conspire together to
violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff also
contends Defendant Sherman allows the filing of false
documents within his institution. Plaintiff alleges he has
tried to utilize the appeals process to gain relief, but he
cannot get an answer to his appeal or receive it back.
asserts that defendants have violated his Due Process and
Equal Protection rights and discriminated against him.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.